That was done around 100 years ago with COBOL. 2013/9/10 Vo Minh Thu <noteed@gmail.com>
The syntax is actually used by non-technical people to write tests. Using it to write Haskell code is a joke. (Using it for business specification is not, even if for technical people this seems overkill.)
Thu
2013/9/10 Ian Ross <ian@skybluetrades.net>:
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
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Alberto.