Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Sure. In that case, it makes a difference - and so you'd better decide 
> which one you actually meant. But remember, Haskell's string concat 
> operator is (++), not (+).

  Well, better example: If the operator is * and the elements are matrices.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Sure. In that case, it makes a difference - and so you'd better decide 
>> which one you actually meant. But remember, Haskell's string concat 
>> operator is (++), not (+).
> 
>   Well, better example: If the operator is * and the elements are matrices.

Yes. In that case, you'd better be really clear about which way you 
actually meant.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But taking a solid, flexible and simple infrastructure and making 
> it complex and convoluted isn't such a hot idea.

The secret is to have something in the infrastructure that lets you hide the 
convoluted complexity, whether that be LISP macros or Tcl upvar or C++ 
templates. Otherwise, you get Java.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> If I'm not wrong, core Haskell is about as clean and simple as plain 
>> Scheme, both based on lambda calculus.  Building upon solid, flexible 
>> and simple infrastructure is not a bad idea.
> 
> Sure. But taking a solid, flexible and simple infrastructure and making 
> it complex and convoluted isn't such a hot idea.

By simple of course we mean things that twist and bend the minds of 
common, mortal programmers.  We're just abstracting that a step further. ;)

Post a reply to this message