Michael Snoyman michael at snoyman.com
Tue Sep 10 13:35:05 CEST 2013

```I'll admit, I also thought it was a joke.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ian Ross <ian at skybluetrades.net> wrote:

> Me too, but I wasn't brave enough to say so after people seemed to be
> taking it seriously...
>
>
> On 10 September 2013 13:33, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info> wrote:
>
>> * John Wiegley <johnw at fpcomplete.com> [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500]
>> > >>>>> Niklas Hambüchen <mail at nh2.me> writes:
>> >
>> > > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read
>> >
>> >
>> >     giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but
>> >     comprehensive.
>> >
>> > Compare:
>> >
>> >     Scenario: Defining the function foldl
>> >       Given I want do define foldl
>> >       Which has the type (in brackets) a to b to a (end of brackets),
>> >                          to a, to list of b, to a
>> >       And my arguments are called f, acc, and l
>> >       When l is empty
>> >       Then the result better be acc
>> >       Otherwise l is x cons xs
>> >       Then the result should be foldl f (in brackets) f acc x
>> >                                 (end of brackets) xs
>> >
>> > To:
>> >
>> >     foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a
>> >     foldl f z []     = z
>> >     foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs
>> >
>> > How is that more concise or preferable?
>>
>> I thought it was a joke.
>>
>> Roman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ian Ross   Tel: +43(0)6804451378   ian at skybluetrades.net
>
> _______________________________________________