[Haskell-cafe] Re: a regressive view of support for imperative programming in Haskell

[Isaac Dupree]

David Roundy wrote:
> The only cost is that
> this syntax relies on the do notation, and thus makes the desugaring of
> that do notation slightly more complicated when used.

If I understand correctly,

  do
   blah
   f (do
            foo
            bar (<- action)
      )
   blah

has an ambiguity: which do-block is the action bound in?  I can easily 
imagine myself being frustrated at having to refactor my code if the 
defined answer is not the one I want at the moment.

Isaac