One more 'do' pattern

[Bulat Ziganshin]

Hello Thomas,

Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:05:02 PM, you wrote:

> In all honesty, I find the idea of adding yet more "imperative"
> looking stuff to do notation an appalling idea.  We already get  
> problems because people read do notation and think it means "execute  
> this in sequence" (see threads about lazy IO not doing what's expected
> for example).

well, people already have problems understanding haskell, not only 'do'
statements

> As an aside, while these are merely syntactic sugars, I find the idea
> of attacking the problem with syntax to be somewhat silly as well.   
> This simply adds a special syntax for another couple of cases that  
> crop up occasionally.  What do we do when we have another, and  
> another, and another, do we keep just adding more and more syntax?

i'm just making industrial programming, with lots of imperative code
and 'do' syntax (compared to imperative languages) is somewhat
limited. so, what i want to have is better syntax. i don't have any
idea whether semantics can be somewhat improved to fix those shortages


-- 
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com