Hello Max, Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 2:30:23 AM, you wrote:
2) sequential functions application in OOP style:
[1..100] .map (2*) .sum
ME> Great proposal! And the only feature haskell will lack is computable go to! ME> And if we add both haskell would become the most expressive and ME> powerful programming language since INTERCAL is the word OOP persuade so strange on you? two days above someone wrote about the same operator, just with different name and i don't see any critics from you or any other FP purists you missed the key of my idea - because '.' syntax is so needed for modules and records, we must either support this as special syntax rules or invent some functional explanation for this syntax. i propose just such explanations, while all other records proposals just say "this must become a special syntax" -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com