[Haskell-cafe] Fwd: 'let' keyword optional in do notation?

[David Feuer]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] 'let' keyword optional in do notation?
To: Martijn Schrage <martijn at oblomov.com>


Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each
other? No thanks.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Martijn Schrage <martijn at oblomov.com> wrote:
> On 08-08-12 17:27, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
>
> Vo Minh Thu <noteed at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is not a parsing problem, but a scoping one: try to run this
> program:
>
> main = do
>   let x = y
>       y = 5
>   let a = b
>   let b = 6
>   print (x, y, a, b)
>
> Cheers,
> Thu
>
> Martijn has actually covered this question:
>
> Where each sequence of let-less bindings is put in a separate
> binding group. I'm no parsing wizard, but I couldn't come up with
> any situations in which this would cause ambiguity. To me, the
> let-less version is easier on the eyes, more consistent with <-
> bindings, and also makes it less of a hassle to move stuff around.
>
>
> To make it more clear, this is the transformation I propose:
>
> do ...        -- not a let-less binding
>    x1 = exp1  -- \
>    ..         --  only let-less bindings
>    xn = expn  -- /
>    ...        -- not a let-less binding
>
> becomes
>
> do ...
>    let x1 = exp1
>        ..
>        xn = expn
>    ...
>
> So
>
> main = do
>
>   x = y
>   y = 5
>   a = b
>
>   b = 6
>   print (x, y, a, b)
>
>
> would put everything in the same binding group and compile successfully. To
> get Thu's example, you would write
>
> main = do
>
>   x = y
>   y = 5
>   let a = b
>   let b = 6
>   print (x, y, a, b)
>
> The last let could even be left out.
>
> Cheers, Martijn
>
> The suggestion seems sound to me, and the additional 'let' can really be
> annoying in cases where you have a lot of 'let' bindings among very few
> monadic actions.  My current way to deal with this is to move the stuff
> to separate computations, but it's certainly not a nice solution:
>
>     myComp = c >>= f
>         where
>         f x = ...
>             where
>             a = ...
>             b = ...
>
>
> Greets
> Ertugrul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>