Moving ArgumentsDo forward

[Baldur Blöndal]

This gets a guilty +1 from me, I have always found $ busy and
cumbersome to read. Patterns such as  ‘f a b c $ do’ are ubiquitous
(especially in ESDLs where clean syntax matters more) and code such as

> dataFetch req = Fetch $ \ref -> do

awkwardly requires 3 steps ($, lambda, do).

2016-06-01 16:32 GMT, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com>:
> Just as a note: I noticed this was being discussed a couple of weeks ago as
> a possible topic for haskell-prime, when they were discussing what was in
> scope for the committee, so I'm not entirely sure its a dead topic.
>
> -Edward
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2016 01:48 PM, Akio Takano wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Ticket #10843 [0] proposes an extension, ArgumentsDo, which I would
>> > love to see in GHC. It's a small syntactic extension that allows do,
>> > case, if and lambda blocks as function arguments, without parentheses.
>> > However, its differential revision [1] has been abandoned, citing a
>> > mixed response from the community. A message [2] on the ticket
>> > summarizes a thread in haskell-cafe on this topic.
>> >
>> > I, for one, think adding this extension is worthwhile, because a
>> > significant number of people support it. Also, given how some people
>> > seem to feel ambivalent about this change, I believe actually allowing
>> > people to try it makes it clearer whether it is a good idea.
>> >
>> > Thus I'm wondering: is there any chance that this gets merged? If so,
>> > I'm willing to work on whatever is remaining to get the change merged.
>> >
>>
>> What's changed since it was last discussed? I don't think the objections
>> were centered in the implementation, so I don't see what "whatever is
>> remaining to get the change merged" would be.
>>
>> AFAICT at best it's a *very* small improvement[1] and fractures Haskell
>> syntax even more around extensions -- tooling etc. will need to
>> understand even *more* syntax extensions[2].
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> [1] If you grant that it is indeed an improvment, which I, personally,
>> don't think it is.
>>
>> [2] I think most people agree that this is something that should perhaps
>> be handled by something like
>> https://github.com/haskell/haskell-ide-engine so that it would only need
>> to be implemented once, but there's not even an alpha release yet, so
>> that particular objection stands, AFAICT.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>