On 09-08-12 10:35, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
Hi,
Martijn Schrage wrote:
Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let feel more
sound to you?
That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same
level will not be in the same binding group, so
do x = y
y = 1
But it would be in line with - bindings in the do notation, so maybe it
wouldn't feel so wrong.
I was about to post this exact example.
do
x - return 1
x - return x
return x
seems to work just fine (the answer is 1). I'd even be ok with =-in-do
being non-recursive like -
-- ryan
On
Hi,
Martijn Schrage wrote:
Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let feel more
sound to you?
That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same
level will not be in the same binding group, so
do x = y
y = 1
would not compile. This would create a
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Feuer david.fe...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] 'let' keyword optional in do notation?
To: Martijn Schrage mart...@oblomov.com
Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:22:39PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each
other? No thanks.
Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let feel more
sound to you?
Cheers,
Simon
___
On 08-08-12 19:01, Simon Hengel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:22:39PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each
other? No thanks.
Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let feel more
sound to you?
That was actually my
Is it really so bad to use an explicit let when you need mutually recursive
bindings?
On Aug 8, 2012 1:51 PM, Martijn Schrage mart...@oblomov.com wrote:
On 08-08-12 19:01, Simon Hengel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:22:39PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
Changing scoping rules based on
