I can do this without extra indentation:
(|>) = flip ($)
f = 5 |> \ x ->
6 |> \ y ->
x + y
Non-recursive let is as superfluous as the do-notation.
On 11.07.2013 17:40, Carter Schonwald wrote:
Yup. Nested cases *are* non recursive lets.
(Can't believe I forgot about that )
On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Edward Kmett wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM, <o...@okmij.org <javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'o...@okmij.org');>> wrote:
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> It just changes forgetting to use different variable names
because of
> recursion (which is currently uniform throughout the language) to
> forgetting to use non recursive let instead of let.
Let me bring to the record the message I just wrote on Haskell-cafe
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2013-July/109116.html
and repeat the example:
In OCaml, I can (and often do) write
let (x,s) = foo 1 [] in
let (y,s) = bar x s in
let (z,s) = baz x y s in ...
In Haskell I'll have to uniquely number the s's:
let (x,s1) = foo 1 [] in
let (y,s2) = bar x s1 in
let (z,s3) = baz x y s2 in ...
and re-number them if I insert a new statement.
blah = case foo 1 [] of
(x, s) -> case bar x s of
(y, s) -> case baz x y s of
(z, s) -> ...
-Edward
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
