I don't think any clarity is added by made-up notation. I think you mean In fact I was "trying" to be correct on this. Is it wrong to show:
[()] >> f = f as was doing: [()] map f = [f] I want to say map function f over a single element list will yield a list of single element, the element being function f. daryoush On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 10:59 -0700, Daryoush Mehrtash wrote: > > I was in fact trying to figure out how "guard" worked in the "do". > > The interesting (for a beginner) insight is that: > > > > [()] map f = [f] > > I don't think any clarity is added by made-up notation. I think you > mean > > map f [()] = [f ()] > > or > > [()] >>= f = f () > > or > > [()] >> f = f > > or > > do > [()] > f > = f > > or > > [ f | _ <- [()] ] = [ f ] > > > --( just as any list with one element would have been such > > as [1] map f = [f] ) where as > > > > [] map f = [] > > And > > map f [] = [] > > or > > [] >>= f = [] > > or > > [] >> f = [] > > or > > do > [] > f > = [] > > or > > [ f | _ <- [] ] = [] > > jcc > > > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
