"Cristian Baboi"
I mean anything that you can put between "{" "}", and between ";"
Okay, there you have it then: the syntax for a block is a {, followed by elements separated by ;s and terminated by a }. Perhaps you are really asking about how the layout rule works? (Which has already been answered, btw.)
Is this ([1 ,2 ,3 ,4]) a tuple or what ? It has commas in it!
Good observation. Lists also have commas in them, and strings can, too. ",,," is not a tuple, either. A tuple would have a (, and subexpressions separated by commas, and terminated by ). The subexpressions would need to be maximal, and have no superexpression except the tuple. I must admit I don't understand why you find this difficult, I've had my share of problems grokking Haskell, but tuple syntax has always seemed quite natural.
- the fact that lambda expressions are not the same thing as "algebraic data" values
It might help to know why you think they might be the same; the syntax is different and the name is different...
Ah, just a thought, nothing more. Lambda expressions are values, which is just data, after all.
Yes.
Even C can apply a function variable to an argument (function pointers).
Would you say that functions and structs in C are the same thing because of this?
This is a fundamental property of the language. A lambda expression is programme and at runtime the system doesn't know one lambda expression from another (all it can do with one is apply it to something).
Even C can apply a function variable to an argument (function pointers). What make Haskell different beside the "lazy evaluation" and "mutable variables" things ?
Referential transparency? But if you are happy about how C can print functions, perhaps you want to do: instance Show (a -> b) where show x = "A function" Main> show (+) "A function" -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants