Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It shouldn't be syntactic suger but at most an operator which does not belong > to the monad class. One could define (>>) just as an ordinary function > instead of a class member.
That sounds to me like the best idea so far. If (as a human reader of a programme) I see do a <- thing1 <expression> and I notice (perhaps after some modifications) that a is not present in <expression>, then I /really/ don't want a change to do thing1 <expression> to change the meaning of the programme. Jón _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
