Menu
With multiple pattern-matching, different numbers of arguments are impossible, even with point-free!
foo True b = b + 2
foo _ = id
doesn't work for example. But
foo True = (+2)
foo _ = id
does. Sometimes we can use point-free only in one part of the function, so...
Why? Is it too hard for GHC? :'(
582
Pointfree Style g . h than to write let fn x = f (g (h x)) . This style is particularly useful when deriving efficient programs by calculation and, in general, constitutes good discipline. It helps the writer (and reader) think about composing functions (high level), rather than shuffling data (low level).
twice then returns a function which takes an argument and applies f to it twice: twice f = \x -> f (f x) .
You have to pass file1 etc. to runQuery like every other function argument: main = do (file1:file2:file3:_) <- getArgs checkdata command <- getLine runQuery file1 file2 file3 (words command) runQuery file1 file2 file3 ("queryname":parameter1:parameter2) = do ...
The sequence (n:ns) is a shorthand for head - tail. Quite literally, the first value, the head, is called n and the remained are the other, potentially plural, n s, which is why it is called ns . Haskell has pattern matching.
Why? Is it too hard for GHC?
No. It is not at all too hard for GHC. Actually, this is the fault of the Haskell Report.
See: Haskell Report 2010 > Declarations and Bindings > Function bindings
A function binding binds a variable to a function value. The general form of a function binding for variable x is:
x p11 … p1k match1
…
x pn1 … pnk matchn[...blah blah...]
Translation: The general binding form for functions is semantically equivalent to the equation (i.e. simple pattern binding):
x = \ x1 … xk -> case (x1, …, xk) of
(p11, …, p1k) match1
…
(pn1, …, pnk) matchn
where the xi are new identifiers.
(emphasis mine)
While function definitions are semantically equivalent to a lambda & case expression, they are not necessarily compiled that way, as Mihai suggests.
The thing is, the Haskell report defines function declarations such that they must have the same number of inputs on the left-hand side of the equation. This is made clear by the fact that k remains the same on both the 1st and the nth function declaration lines (and by implication, all lines in-between). This is the reason for the restriction; it has nothing to do with GHC's implementation details.
tl;dr
The choice not to allow it is just a matter of style. – augustss
90
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
