[Haskell-cafe] extending Do notation

[Kim-Ee Yeoh]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:39 PM, silvio <silvio.frischi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) >>= flip  is ugly
>

Indeed. Many things are ugly in haskell. Improvements exact their own costs
too.


>
> 2) you can't use >>= in an if condition
>

Could you give an example of the if condition you want an >>= in?


>
> 3) or imagine you want to fill it in some 3-tuple or a record type.
>

 What does this mean?


> 4) res <- fmap pureFunction ioFunction === let res = pureFunction {
> ioFunction}
>

>From a distance, let and monadic bind are just different forms of name
binding.

But haskell's let has an effectlessness that makes it declaratively
different from its cousin in, say, ocaml.

This is no small change you're proposing.

-- Kim-Ee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20140520/85434d4b/attachment.html>