Desugaring do-notation to Applicative

[Neil Sculthorpe]

While I really like applicative notation, sometimes naming intermediate
results can make code a lot more readable.  So I think supporting
applicative do-notation would be beneficial.

Neil

On 02/10/13 07:00, p.k.f.holzenspies wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:12:26 +0000
> From: <p.k.f.holzenspies at utwente.nl>
> To: <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>, <dag.odenhall at gmail.com>
> Cc: marlowsd at gmail.com, glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org,
> 	simonpj at microsoft.com
> Subject: RE: Desugaring do-notation to Applicative
> Message-ID:
> 	<E7F535B24A47D747A07D46C0AA82D43D0AB17531 at EXMBX21.ad.utwente.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
>