See also this thread
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2007-July/002269.html
Magnus made a TH library that does something similar, see
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2007-July/002275.html
Nesting is important. Consider
do { a <- f x
; b <- g a
; return (2*b) }
Then you'd like to linearise this to give
do { return (2 * $(g $(f x))) }
The hardest thing about this project is finding a suitable syntax! You can't
use the same syntax as TH, but it does have a "splice-like" flavour, so
something similar would make sense. $[ thing ] perhaps? Or %( thing )? Avoid
anything that looks like a TH *quotation* because that suggests the wrong
thing. (| thing |) is bad.
A good plan can be to start a Wiki page that describes the problem, then the
proposed extension, gives lots of exmaples, etc.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
| Smith
| Sent: 03 August 2007 04:30
| To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
| Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Re: monad subexpressions
|
| Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I think this is a fantastic idea, please do so!
| >
|
| Okay, I'll do it then. If I have a good weekend, perhaps I'll volunteer
| a talk at AngloHaskell after all! :)
|
| So what about syntax? I agree with your objections, so we've got
|
| ( <- expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous
| ``expr`` -- back-ticks make sense for UNIX shell scripters
|
| The first is something Simon Peyton-Jones came up with (probably on-the-
| fly) at OSCON, and I rather like it a lot; but I'm concerned about
| ambiguity. The latter seems sensible as well. Any other ideas?
|
| --
| Chris Smith
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
