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

[Tillmann Rendel]

Hi,

Martijn Schrage wrote:
>> 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.

But it would be in line with <- bindings in the do notation, so maybe it 
wouldn't feel so wrong.

   Tillmann