The worst piece of syntax in Haskell

[Sebastian Sylvan]

On 2/22/06, Ashley Yakeley <ashley at semantic.org> wrote:
> Josef Svenningsson wrote:
>
> > This is one of the things that the Clean people got right. In Clean, my
> > examples from above would look like:
> >
> >  > class MonadPlus m | Monad m where ...
> >  >
> >  > class Ix a | Ord a where ..
> >  >
> >  > instance Eq (Ratio a) | Integral a where ...
>
> Not quite the same complaint, but I've always been bothered by the
> inconsistent use of "=>". I would prefer "A => B" to mean "if A, then
> B". Accordingly:
>
>    class Monad m <= MonadPlus m

By your definition, couldn't what we have now (class Monad m =>
MonadPlus m) be read as "If m is in the Monad class, then the class
MonadPlus can be defined for m thusly:...", which seems pretty clear
to me.

/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862