On 2005-06-30, Malcolm Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ideal front-end for a syntax-directed tool like Hat consists solely
> of a lexer/parser to an abstract syntax tree, with no desugaring
> whatsoever, and no typechecking. This is essentially what we have
This sounds suspiciously like
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, wenduan wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Suppose we have defined two functions as below:
>
> case :: (a -> c,b -> c) -> Either a b -> c
> case (f, g) (Left x) = f x
> case (f, g) (Right x) = g x
It seems to be
case == uncurry either
Prelude> :info either
-- either is a variable
eith
Wenduan,
What I thought at first the signature of plus should be: plus :: (a ->
c, b -> d) -> Either a b -> Either c d?Anyone know where I was wrong?
Your initial thought was right: it should
(a -> c, b -> d) -> Either a b -> Either c d
Why didn't you just test it by feeding in to a compil
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Michael Walter wrote:
> On 7/5/05, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The example, again: If you write some common expression like
> >
> > transpose x * a * x
> >
> > then both the human reader and the compiler don't know whether x is a
> > "true" matrix or if i
Dear all,
Suppose we have defined two functions as below:
case :: (a -> c,b -> c) -> Either a b -> c
case (f, g) (Left x) = f x
case (f, g) (Right x) = g x
plus :: (a -> b, c -> d) -> Either a b -> Either c d
plus (f, g) = case(Left.f, Right.g)
My question is regarding to the function signatur
