[Haskell-cafe] Re: 'par' - why has it the type a -> b -> b ?

[Jonathan Cast]

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 20:34 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> Jonathan Cast <jonathanccast at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 19:50 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> > > "Sean Leather" <leather at cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > (\x y -> y)
> > > > >
> > > > > *shudder*
> > > > >
> > > > > I just can't stand such things.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > What is it that you can't stand? Would you prefer "flip const"?
> > > > 
> > > It's the missing "x" on the right side. Makes my internal C compiler
> > > ache.
> > 
> > (\ _ y -> y)
> > 
> Still begs for a rewrite at the call-site... oh wait, that won't work.

And I still think you should fix your internal C compiler.  This sort of
thing can be taken to excess (see Fudgets :), but in moderation it's a
perfectly fine *Haskell* idiom.

jcc