On 28 jun 2007, at 21.17, Greg Meredith wrote:
Once you have a polymorphic let, why do you need 'let' in the base
language, at all? Is it possible to formulate Haskell entirely with
do-notation where there is a standard monad for let environments?
Probably this was all discussed before in the design deliberations
for the language standard. Pointers would be very much appreciated.
let x = ... in ...
is only equal
do x <- ...; ...
in the Identity monad. Also, why would "do" be more primitive than
"let". That way you would have to use monads everywhere. Also, let
is treated specially by the type checker (IIRC) and there are many,
many other reasons not to do that.
Why would you consider the syntactic sugar do { x <- e; .. } which is
just a different way of writing function binding (e >>= \x -> ...)
consider more primitive than "let"?
/ Thomas
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
