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

[Ryan Ingram]

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

I was about to post this exact example.

do
  x <- return 1
  x <- return x
  return x

seems to work just fine (the answer is 1).  I'd even be ok with =-in-do
being non-recursive like <-

  -- ryan

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Tillmann Rendel <
rendel at informatik.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120813/ea3b7e09/attachment.htm>