Michael Hanus wrote:
> If you use function patterns, it is not a problem,
> since the function pattern
>
> last (_ ++ [x]) = x
>
> is considered as an abbreviation for the infinite set of rules
>
> last [x] = x
> last [_,x] = x
> last [_,_,x] = x
> ...
>
> i.e., variables in a function pattern are considered as pattern
> variables which can be bound to partial functions.
I know. However, the FlatCurry translation of last is effectively
last a1 = let x,xs free in cond (xs ++ x:[] =:<= a1) x
so I expect the problem to show up for that definition, too.
Regards
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Sa Mai 17 2008 - 17:03:38 CEST