Re: [Haskell-cafe] conflicting variable definitions in pattern

Conor McBride wrote on 15.05.2009 16:19:

My guess is that if this feature were already in, few would be campaigning to remove it.

You're probably right. For example, I'm not compaigning to remove multiple inheritance (from non-abstract classes) from C++. But I still think it's an ugly feature, it'd be better not to have it, it's encouraging bad design etc. The same for this Eq-patterns. BTW, why stop on (x:x:xs)? Let's use patterns like (x:factorial(x):xs), or (factorial(x):x:xs), or (factorial(x):xs)... No, wait, the last pattern would be impossible to compile. But I think you've got the point.