[Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different?

[MigMit]

On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:

>> So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic calculations in a list (without joining all there effects as the sequence function does)?
> 
> The plan is to make a clearer distinction between "being" and "doing" by
> splitting types clearly into an effect part and a value part, in a sort
> of a Levy-style call-by-push-value way. The notation
> 
> [<list of effects>]<value type>
> 
> is a computation type whose inhabitants might *do* some of the effects in
> order to produce a value which *is* of the given value type.

Oh, so it's not an arbitrary monad, but a single one. That's a bit disappointing.