7 Feb
2005
7 Feb
'05
6:51 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 10:53:36AM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Thanks for the typo. Yes, for Haskell guys 'guard' is fine; but the main audience for the paper is non-haskell folk, so we have to spell out the defn.
S
Hm, what about calling it `guard' and adding a footnote saying that in Haskell its type is actually more general? It smells a bit like namespace pollution to me right now. (Says he who hasn't even compiled 6.3 since STM got in ;) Groetjes, Remi