Re: Results: poll: polymorphic let bindings in do

[Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk]

Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:09:41 +0200 (MET DST), Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:

> If a language has the property that in one place, one can
> use a "let" block to define polymorphic bindings, and in
> another place one can only use it for monomorphic bindings,
> then I think that is bad language design.

As I said: drop the "let" keyword inside "do", so it won't suggest
polymorphism.

Would it be possible to have polymorphism only in bindings with
explicit type signature?

-- 
 __("<    Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
 \__/              GCS/M d- s+:-- a23 C+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
  ^^                  W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP+ t
QRCZAK                  5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-