>> 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)".

OK.

>   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).

The dot can mean two different things. "x . y" means  function 
composition. "x.y" is a qualified name. (It means the variables "y" from 
module "x".)

>> 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

Heh. If you mean "why isn't it some random symbol?" then the answer is 
"you can only use symbols for *binary* functions, not *unary* functions 
such as NOT".

Oh, you're going to love this... The logical AND and OR functions are 
"&&" and "||" respectively, but Haskell *also* has functions named "and" 
and "or". They take the logical AND or OR of a list of booleans.

Hey, I said Haskell was a great language. I never said the standard 
libraries were perfect. ;-) I'm sure you can probably name a few 
unfortunately design choices of the C++ libraries too...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message