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

[David Feuer]

Is it really so bad to use an explicit let when you need mutually recursive
bindings?
On Aug 8, 2012 1:51 PM, "Martijn Schrage" <martijn at oblomov.com> wrote:

>  On 08-08-12 19:01, Simon Hengel wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:22:39PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
>
>  Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each
> other? No thanks.
>
>
> Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let "feel" more
> sound to you?
>
>
>  That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same
> level will not be in the same binding group, so
>
> do x = y
>    y = 1
>
> would not compile. This would create a difference with all the other
> places where bindings may appear.
>
> However, having scope depend on things being next to each other (or
> rather, not having anything in between) is not new. Template Haskell
> declaration splices already cause separate binding groups for top-level
> declarations. Moreover, the new scope rule only holds for let-less
> bindings. If you use explicit lets nothing changes.
>
> -- Martijn
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120808/b6e3cf01/attachment.htm>