cvs commit: hugs98 Readme hugs98/docs hugs.1.in hugs98/docs/users_guide hugs_ghc.sgml introduction.sgml running.sgml hugs98/src Makefile.in input.c opts.c opts.h parser.y hugs98/src/unix hugs-package.in test_libraries hugs98/tests ...

[Simon Marlow]

> >> ross        2003/09/18 11:02:25 PDT
> >>
> >>   Modified files:
> >>     .                    Readme
> >>     docs                 hugs.1.in
> >>     docs/users_guide     hugs_ghc.sgml introduction.sgml
> >>                          running.sgml
> >>     src                  Makefile.in input.c opts.c opts.h
> >>                          parser.y
> >>     src/unix             hugs-package.in test_libraries
> >>     tests                testScript
> >>   Log:
> >>   Remove the obsolete dlet/with syntax, and the +/-W option.
> >
> > Should we do this in GHC too?  For 6.2 maybe?
> >
> 
> I'd love to see it stay, because it is syntactically oh-so-much-nicer 
> than `let' in practice.
> 
> However, having lost that battle previously (albeit for the wrong 
> reasons, of course ;-), I can't think of a good reason to 
> keep it.  And 
> besides, it bugs Sven, so lets take it out of GHC (for 6.2) as well.

Ideally we'd like to keep everyone happy.  Sometimes that's not
possible, and this is one of those cases.  Now, the 'with' keyword isn't
doing anyone any harm where it is apart from adding a bit of complexity
to the parser, and I'm not really bothered by that, so I really don't
mind leaving it in if you're still using it.

I think the long-term outlook for 'with' is bleak, though.

Cheers,
	Simon