[Haskell-cafe] re-definition of '.'
bulatz at HotPOP.com
Tue Nov 22 04:36:39 EST 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 2:30:23 AM, you wrote:
>> 2) sequential functions application in OOP style:
>> [1..100] .map (2*) .sum
ME> Great proposal! And the only feature haskell will lack is computable go to!
ME> And if we add both haskell would become the most expressive and
ME> powerful programming language since INTERCAL
is the word OOP persuade so strange on you? two days above someone
wrote about the same operator, just with different name and i don't
see any critics from you or any other FP purists
you missed the key of my idea - because '.' syntax is so needed for
modules and records, we must either support this as special syntax
rules or invent some functional explanation for this syntax. i propose
just such explanations, while all other records proposals just say
"this must become a special syntax"
Bulat mailto:bulatz at HotPOP.com
More information about the Haskell-Cafe