One more 'do' pattern

[Bulat Ziganshin]

Hello Thomas,

Saturday, March 28, 2009, 1:04:01 PM, you wrote:

> To get back on topic though... Here's *why* I don't want these
> specific things I wouldn't use added to haskell:

> • The syntax gains very little over the nice consistent syntax we  
> already have – all you do is move a symbol a little to the left.

main problem with lack-of-syntax is that we write "variables" at right:

action x y >>= \v -> do
action x y $ \v -> do

another problem is all those funny "$\->do" one need to write

>    • We encourage people to write code unnecessarily in an imperative
> style

i wonder at this argument. we make using 'do' simpler and this is bad
thing? :) probably you should argue against invention monads at all -
it's Wadler who added imperative features to this pure shine Haskell :D


about syntax - i don't mean that i proposed something ideal i just
want to figure out here one pattern of 'do' usage which i use quite
often. imho, moving variables to the left would be good thing, exact
syntax is a matter of debates


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