Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>    case size c of
>      3 -> case (size (c ! 0), size (c ! 1), size (c ! 2)) of
>             (1, 2, 3) -> (c ! 0 ! 0) + (c ! 1 ! 0) + (c ! 2 ! 0)
>             _         -> 0
>      _ -> 0

  I don't know why, but I got an irresistible urge to write some faux haskell
after seeing that.

    case closed in d by
      x -> case (open, not!, closed, yes!, 2) because
           (1, 2, 3) -> (one, two, three) + x
            hence    -> yes
      hence -> no

  To me, it makes exactly as much sense. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message