Re: [pure-lang-users] Proposed syntax changes

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Eddie Rucker wrote:
>> 1 2 3
> Hey Libor, that's cute! Tain't thought of that one. But, ... How do you
> get at the elements?

That's easy:

   > f x = a [] x with a xs (x@_ y) = a (y:xs) x; a xs x = x:xs end;
   > f (1 2 3 4);
   [1,2,3,4]

> Would be nice if we could have something like [1 2 3 4]

That would wreak havoc on the Pure grammar. But the above hack should do 
the trick as long as the first element can't be mistaken for a closure.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag