Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> You can't do "c at 2", but there's no reason you couldn't do "c `at` 2".

  If this were C++, it would actually be "c.at(2)" (in fact, with indexable
STL containers it not only *would* be, but actually *is* like that; well, at
least if you want boundary checks that is.)

  But I suppose that since Haskell is not an OO language and its dot operator
probably means something else altogether, making it like that would probably
be difficult (and would probably require a complete syntax redesign).

> >   Btw, what is logical not in Haskell?

> You're going to love this...

> It's "not". As in "not (x == y)".

  Why suddenly have one operator be a comprehensible word? Were they
uninspired when they thought up that one? :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message