One more 'do' pattern

[Thomas Davie]

On 28 Mar 2009, at 10:13, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

> 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

I'm not sure why "industrial programming" means "programming not in a  
functional style".  It certainly doesn't mean that where I work.

Bob