> Mark Utting writes:
>
> > fb::IO ()
> > fb =
> > do {
> > putStr "Enter Data: ";
> > line <- getLine;
> > let line2 = line;
> > putStr line2;
> >}
> >
> > ERROR "f.hs" (line 13): Syntax error in definition
> > (unexpected symbol "putStr
> fb =
> do {
> putStr "Enter Data: ";
> line <- getLine;
> let line2 = line;
> putStr line2;
>}
I suggest doing this:
> fb =
> do { putStr "Enter Data: "
>; line <- getLine
>; let line2 = line
>; putStr line2
>}
wh
Mark Utting writes:
> fb::IO ()
> fb =
> do {
> putStr "Enter Data: ";
> line <- getLine;
> let line2 = line;
> putStr line2;
>}
>
> ERROR "f.hs" (line 13): Syntax error in definition
> (unexpected symbol "putStr")
I find it hard to de
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:20:19 +1300, Mark Utting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> fb::IO ()
> fb =
> do {
> putStr "Enter Data: ";
> line <- getLine;
> let line2 = line;
> putStr line2;
>}
I have a different proposal. Let's drop the 'let' keyword in value
bin
Mark Utting wrote:
> Summary: Haskell layout has problems within 'do' (see below).
> Can we change Haskell to improve it?
I don't think the language has to be changed. It seems to me that the
problems is more with the idea of editing the source code as plain text.
Ideally, I would like
Summary: Haskell layout has problems within 'do' (see below).
Can we change Haskell to improve it?
We teach Haskell to all our second-year students, and we
like to teach the OPTION of using explicit braces and ;'s.
(If students write nested do constructs, even though we discourage t
