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@ro-che.info> wrote:

* John Wiegley <johnw@fpcomplete.com> [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500]
> >>>>> Niklas Hambüchen <mail@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.

Roman

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

--
Ian Ross   Tel: +43(0)6804451378   ian@skybluetrades.net   www.skybluetrades.net

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe