apfelmus wrote:
IMHO, the long-time debate about views is not whether they're useful (I think they are!) but which concrete form to choose. Unfortunately, all of the proposals so far are somehow like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: one side is nice but the other is rather ugly.
In the end, I might end up using the currently proposed pattern views, not because I'm fond of the proposal but simply because they're implemented and the pain of not using views is too big.
Maybe it would be helpful if Simon M would give a bit more flesh to the bones of his suggestion that all the examples in the proposal can be done more concisely without them. apfelmus: Have you tried using pattern guards for views? f s | y <: ys <- viewl s = .... | EmptyL <- viewl s = .... (did I get that right? :) Personally I thought the basic proposal is quite nice, but the extra sugar for Maybes and tuples looked a bit ugly... Jules