[ghc-steering-committee] #216: Qualified Do again, recommendation: accept the alternative

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 06.05.2020, 16:28 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 06.05.2020, 15:55 +0200 schrieb Spiwack, Arnaud:
> > There is one question to solve: should we use the standard names
> > `(>>=)`, `(>>)` for desugaring? (so that the type class methods can
> > be used directly). Or some dedicated names `desugaringBind`, … ? To
> > avoid name clashes.
> 
> given that the recommended idiom is to only use this with a qualified
> module name, I think using the normal, well-known names is reasonable.


do we have more opinions on this? If not we can go with the author’s
proposal, which is to use the standard names. It’s natural that when I
can write `M.do { a M.>> b ; c }` after all, and helpful if programmer
can expect M.>> to be there for every module M that they would use to
qualify `do`.


Cheers,
Joachim
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/