[Haskell-cafe] Re: Do expression definition
lemming at henning-thielemann.de
Mon Sep 13 06:02:20 EDT 2010
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Gleb Alexeyev wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 12:38 PM, Thomas Davie wrote:
>> There's no "later" here at all.
>> Two seperate definitions in a Haskell program act as if they have always
>> been defined, are defined, and always will be defined, they are not dealt
>> with in sequence (except for pattern matching but that doesn't apply here).
> I don't understand, I'm afraid. Michael Lazarev asked for example on the
> difference between let-bound and lambda-bound values. testNotOk definition
> mirrors the structure of the testOk definition, but testNotOk is, pardon my
> pun, not ok, because f is let-bound and, therefore, monomorphic, while f in
> the first definition is polymorphic.
> I never implied that definitions are processed in some sort of sequence, nor
> I stated that the two f's are somehow related.
I think the "later" refered to my words. With "later" I meant somewhere
below the binding in the do-block.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe