Hi Jan,

What you're suggesting is called "non-linear patterns", and it's a perfectly sensible, well-defined feature in a language with pattern-matching. As you point out, non-linearity allows for more direct & succinct programming. I've often wished for this feature when writing optimizations on data types, especially for syntactic types (languages).

As Ivan mentioned, there is some danger that people may accidentally a non-linear pattern accidentally, and perhaps the early Haskell designers chose the linearity restriction out of this worry. The importance of such dangers is a subjective call, and certainly not one carried out consistently in Haskell. Consider, for instance, the choice that let & where bindings are recursive by default in Haskell, unlike ML and Lisp. I like this choice, but I can understand objections that it leads to accidental recursions, especially for non-functions.


-- Conal



On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek@p.lodz.pl> wrote:
> You can achieve something similar with the ViewPatterns language
> extension.
>
> member _ [] = False
> member x (((x ==) -> True) : _) = True
> member x (_ : xs) = member x xs
Hi Tillmann,

there are a couple of ways to achieve this in Haskell, for example using guards:

member :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool
member _ []             = False
member y (x:_) | x == y = True
member y (_:xs)         = member y xs

The goal of my proposal is to provide a concise syntax, whereas ViewPatterns are very verbose and
guards are slightly verbose. I want something simple and something that is very intuitive if
you've programmed in Prolog :)

Janek

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