Another alternative (which I got from Greg Morrisett) that I'm toying with is
this. It's tiresome to write
do { x - stuff1
; y - sutff2
; f x y }
In ML I'd write simply
f stuff1 stuff2
So Greg's idea (or at least my understanding thereof) is to write it
On 11 Jul 2007, at 08:38, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Another alternative (which I got from Greg Morrisett) that I'm
toying with is this. It's tiresome to write
do { x - stuff1
; y - sutff2
; f x y }
In ML I'd write simply
f stuff1 stuff2
Using
Wouter Swierstra wrote:
On 11 Jul 2007, at 08:38, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Another alternative (which I got from Greg Morrisett) that I'm toying
with is this. It's tiresome to write
do { x - stuff1
; y - sutff2
; f x y }
In ML I'd write simply
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 11:38:31 AM, you wrote:
So Greg's idea (or at least my understanding thereof) is to write it like
this:
do { f $(stuff1) $(stuff2) }
Simon, it is thing i dreamed for a years! Haskell has serious drawback
for imperative programming compared to
ctm:
Indeed it can. Ignoring conventional wisdom about dirty linen, here are
idiom brackets
class Applicative i = Idiomatic i f g | g - f i where
idiomatic :: i f - g
iI :: Idiomatic i f g = f - g
iI = idiomatic . pure
data Ii = Ii
instance Applicative i= Idiomatic i
Monads are a part of Haskell. The more tiresome monads are to use, the
more tiresome Haskell is to use. I suggest we leave the decision of
where and when to use them to each individual user of the language.
/Adde
In any case, I'm *strongly against* further syntactic sugar for
monads,
