"do" notation and ">>"

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

Folks

Following a good deal of email I now propose to

	DO NOTHING

to the rules defining do-notation in the Haskell 98 Report. =20
That means that GHC and Hugs, and nhc perhaps, should=20
change so that they actually implement the do-notation=20
translation rule

  do {e ; stmts}   =3D   e >> do {stmts}

using (>>) and not (>>=3D).

From my reading of the email, some people will agree strongly,
and no one will disagree strongly.  I suppose I could be wrong about
this, though.

Simon