[Haskell-cafe] Re: Re: monad subexpressions

[Sebastian Sylvan]

On 03/08/07, Chris Smith <cdsmith at twu.net> wrote:
> Sebastian Sylvan <sebastian.sylvan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd also like to reiterate my request for a notation that doesn't
> > require brackets around the *action* but will also work by applying it
> > to a function which when fully applied to its argument returns an
> > action (i.e.:   $foo x y + $bar z w, rather than $(foo x y) + $(bar z
> > w)). Function application is normally very low-noise in Haskell
> > (good), and it would be nice if we can keep it low-noise in this
> > notation too.
>
> I'm trying to understand your suggestion.  Can you tell me how you'd
> sugar the following?
>
>     getA :: Friggle MyA
>     getB :: Friggle MyB
>     foo  :: Int -> MyB -> Friggle MyC
>
>     do a <- getA
>        b <- getB a
>        foo 42 b
>
Something like:

foo 42 (#getB #getA)?

Is there an ambiguity that I'm to dense to see here? :-)

-- 
Sebastian Sylvan
+44(0)7857-300802
UIN: 44640862