On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Bernard Pope wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 10:14 +0200, Sven Moritz Hallberg wrote:
Donn Cave schrieb: ...
but how do you write getArgs >>= \ [] -> putStrLn "(no arguments)" (a:_) -> putStrLn (show a)
What about good old let?
main = getArgs >>= let f [] = putStrLn "(no arguments)" f (a:_) = putStrLn (show a) in f
Indeed, I think I'm even on record somewhere arguing that lambda is more or less extraneous. Over-used, at any rate. I was thinking "where" instead of "let", but same difference. But I wouldn't think the Haskell community would favor the Python approach, where they have lambda but don't mind that it's sort of crippled. If lambda is staying, and it's feasible to make it syntactically equivalent to a named function, that seems better than a new "caseof" that appears to be essentially the same thing. Donn Cave, donn@drizzle.com