On 2006-02-04 at 15:11+0100 John Hughes wrote:
I noticed ticket #55--add parallel list comprehensions--which according to the ticket, will probably be adopted. I would argue against.
I also agree.
Firstly: because in its more general forms the notation is confusing. Try this example:
[(i,j,k) | i<-[1..3], j<-[1..3] | k <- [1..9]]
In general it's hard to predict how the elements from each set of generators and filters will match up.
and I always think it's going to do something cooler -- a "fair" list product (like "," only working on infinite lists), not a zip, and then I'm disappointed when I remember it doesn't. So it just uses up some syntax (ie adds possible errors) without adding anything really useful. There ought to be a list_product somewhere (I mean [1..] `list_product` [4..] == [(1,4),(2,4),(1,5),(3,4),(2,5),(1,6),...]). Is there? Jón -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk