Desugaring do-notation to Applicative

[p.k.f.holzenspies at utwente.nl]

I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor?s paper) was to restore some function-application-style to the whole effects-thing, i.e. it was the very point *not* to resort to binds or do-notation.

That being said, I?m all for something that will promote the use of the name ?pure? over ?return?.

+1 for the Opt-In

Ph.



From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Iavor Diatchki


do x1 <- e1

   -- The following part is `Applicative`
   (x2,x3) <- do x2 <- e2 x1
                 x3 <- e3
                 pure (x2,x3)

   f x1 x2 x3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20131002/b0768cff/attachment.html>