[Haskell-cafe] Do expression definition

[Henning Thielemann]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Alexander Kotelnikov wrote:

> Hello.
>
> http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/exps.html#sect3.14 a obscure (to me) note which says
>
> "As indicated by the translation of do, variables bound by let have fully polymorphic types while those defined by <- are lambda bound and are thus monomorphic."
>
> What actually does it mean?

It means that variables bound by let, may be instantiated to different 
types later.

> And, also, would it make any difference if
>
>
> do {p <- e; stmts}	=	let ok p = do {stmts}
>    ok _ = fail "..."
>  in e >>= ok
>
> is redefined as "e >>= (\p -> do {stmts})"?

It would not make a difference because the (>>=)-expression is what the 
do-expression is expanded to.