On 03/08/07, Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd also like to reiterate my request for a notation that doesn't
> > require brackets around the *action* but will also work by applying it
> > to a function which when fully applied to its argume
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> assembler :) it's what our opponents propose - let's Haskell be like
> assembler with its simple and concise execution model :)
I feel bad that portions of this thread have gotten a bit ugly. I don't
have any opponents, so far as I know. I am just t
Sorry for the double post, I posted with the wrong email address and
haskell-cafe rejected it.
On 8/3/07, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right. In effect, as a matter of fact, the notation
> >
> > x <- a
> >
> > would become equivalent to
> >
> > let x = (<- a)
>
> Hmm, int
Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also like to reiterate my request for a notation that doesn't
> require brackets around the *action* but will also work by applying it
> to a function which when fully applied to its argument returns an
> action (i.e.: $foo x y + $bar z w, rather
Hi
> > Can you combine let and do?
> >
> > do let x = (<- a)
> >f x
>
> Right. In effect, as a matter of fact, the notation
>
> x <- a
>
> would become equivalent to
>
> let x = (<- a)
Hmm, interesting. Consider:
let x = 12
let x = (<- x)
Currently, in let x = ... the x is in scope
Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thinking on the semantic issue for the moment:
>
> Can you use (<-) outside of a do block?
Good question, but my answer is a strong no! Syntactic sugar for monads
has always been tied to do blocks; promoting it outside of contexts
where "do" announces
Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We started with 4 suggestions, and as far as I can tell, are
> left with only one (<- ...).
> For the record, my comments on (<- ...) where not objections, but
> merely "thoughts out loud", and I could certainly see myself using
> that syntax in a day to
Derek Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ( <- expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous
> > ``expr`` -- back-ticks make sense for UNIX shell scripters
> The latter is not sensible to me at all. It doesn't nest well.
Ah, excellent point! Okay, it's gone then. Everything will
