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

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:52 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> 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.

Understood about the havoc on the pure grammar. I thought you had
something very useful for me for a second. However,

  > f x = a [] x with a xs (x@_ y) = a (y:xs) x; a xs x = x:xs end;
  > let k = f ();

when I highlight a sequence of numbers vertically from an openoffice
spreadsheet and middle click in the () I get

  > let k = f ();34 
  > 56
  > 78
  > 34
  > 56
  > 12

And when I highlight a sequence of numbers horizontally from an
openoffice spreadsheet and middle click in the () I get

  > let k = f();34122334

Note quite what I was looking for but don't worry about it and be
happy ;-)

e.r.