[Haskell-cafe] Re: monad subexpressions
ndmitchell at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 08:49:13 EDT 2007
Perhaps we need to cool this thread down a little bit, and refocus. I
personally choose never to use ++ as anything but a statement, since
my brain works that way. Other people find different things natural,
so can pick what they choose. The one thing you can guarantee is that
discussing it isn't going to result in anyone changing their opinion!
The thread started out on monad subexpressions, with request for
helpful thoughts as to what could be done with them, and how we can
treat them syntactically. Does anyone have any further thoughts on the
syntax? We started with 4 suggestions, and as far as I can tell, are
left with only one (<- ...). This is the time for people to have new
and clever thoughts, and possibly shape the future of (what I think)
will be a very commonly used Haskell syntax.
For the record, my comments on (<- ...) where not objections, but
merely "thoughts out loud", and I could certainly see myself using
that syntax in a day to day basis.
On 8/3/07, Mirko Rahn <rahn at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> >>> rewrite *p++=*q++ in haskell?
> > it's one of C idioms. probably, you don't have enough C experience to
> > understand it :)
> Maybe, but how can *you* understand it, when the standard is vague about it?
> It could be
> A: *p=*q; p+=1; q+=1;
> B: *p=*q; q+=1; p+=1;
> C: tp=p; tq=q; p+=1; q+=1; *tp=*tq;
> ...and so on. Which is the "right" version?
> > result is that currently C code rewritten in Haskell becomes much
> > larger and less readable.
> Larger should not be that issue and readability depends on the reader as
> your C example shows. Some Haskellers would very quickly recognize some
> common idioms, where others need some help...
> -- Mirko Rahn -- Tel +49-721 608 7504 --
> --- http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/~rahn/ ---
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe