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

[Michael Walker]

I feel that if people are confused about whether to use "let x = ..."
or "x <- ...", changing the syntax to remove the "let" won't help.

On 16 April 2017 at 21:32, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev
<varosi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>



-- 
Michael Walker (http://www.barrucadu.co.uk)