[Haskell-cafe] Proposal: New syntax for Haskell
Vo Minh Thu
noteed at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 13:36:44 CEST 2013
The syntax is actually used by non-technical people to write tests.
Using it to write Haskell code is a joke. (Using it for business
specification is not, even if for technical people this seems
2013/9/10 Ian Ross <ian at skybluetrades.net>:
> 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
>> > concise |kənˈsīs|, adj.
>> > 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.
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> Ian Ross Tel: +43(0)6804451378 ian at skybluetrades.net
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe