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 Mi Nov 03 2004 - 09:15:16 CET