Hello Tim, Saturday, January 27, 2007, 6:14:01 AM, you wrote:
> He brings up a very good point. Using a monad lets you deal with > side effects but also forces the programmer to specify an exact > ordering. 1. it's just a *syntax* issue. at least, ML's solution can be applied: x <- .y + .z where "." is an explicit dereferencing operator (readIORef) 2. it bites me too. it's why i say that C++ is better imperative language than Haskell. there are also many other similar issues, such as lack of good syntax for "for", "while", "break" and other well-known statements, inability to use "return" inside of block and so on -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
