Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

[Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev]

They are confused about when one should put "let x = ..." or "x <- ..."
mostly before they learn what is monad.

2017-04-16 21:15 GMT+03:00 Francesco Ariis <fa-ml at ariis.it>:

> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev
> wrote:
> > Okay, sorry for taking your time about those propositions. I'm just
> > thinking of ways for improving future Haskell. My feedback is mostly from
> > talking with people and trying to teach them in Haskell.
>
> As others, I am not convinced with the proposal (given the amount of
> boxes marked "Translation" in the Haskell report, I wish we had a
> standard way to handling syntactic rewrites; it could come handy in
> yours and many more cases).
>
> But I am interested in newcomers and their introduction to the language:
> did they get confused by `let` or just pointed it out as superfluous?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/attachments/20170416/1432fea4/attachment.html>