On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:02:43AM +0100, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
Furthermore, I think with this syntax, it is just too easy to get wrong. Maybe I'm mistaken, but, to illustrate, I believe there's even an error in the very examples given by you:
after:
case t of (_, _, ctx @> z) -> ctx z
Shouldn't that be <code>case t of (_, _, ctx @> z) -> ctx (z + 1)</code>?
Yes, it should. I didn't have much time to think about this idea, so I thought I will pass it on to other people with more time and/or brains before I completely forget it. As for the bug, let me give you more data points to consider. At the time I was writing the examples I was simultaneously distracted by my wife (accusing me of being a computer-o-holic ;) and my cat (wanting me to play with her). I think it was a bigger "contribution" to this bug :) Best regards, Tomasz