Re: Proposal: Relaxing restrictions in Curry

From: Michael Hanus <mh_at_informatik.uni-kiel.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:59:32 +0100

Sergio Antoy wrote:
> I agree with this too. Wouldn't the definition of &> be
> simpler as follows
>
> (&>) :: Success -> a -> a
> Success &> x = x

This could be the base of the implementation.
However, the type "Success" has no public constructor
(to avoid pattern matching on constraints) so that this definition
would be illegal.

Best regards,

Michael

_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 09:15:16 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Nov 18 2019 - 07:15:05 CET