Wouter Swierstra wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 2007, at 08:38, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
>> Another alternative (which I got from Greg Morrisett) that I'm toying
>> with is this. It's tiresome to write
>>
>> do { x <- <stuff1>
>> ; y <- <sutff2>
>> ; f x y }
>>
>> In ML I'd write simply
>>
>> f <stuff1> <stuff2>
>
> Using Control.Applicative you could already write:
>
> f <$> x <*> y
No, since f is not a pure function, it's f :: x -> y -> m c. The correct
form would be
join $ f <$> x <*> y
(Why doesn't haddock document infix precedences?) But maybe some
type-class hackery can be used to eliminate the join.
In any case, I'm *strongly against* further syntactic sugar for monads,
including #1518. The more tiresome monads are, the more incentive you
have to avoid them.
Regards,
apfelmus
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
