">>" and "do" notation

[Jon Fairbairn]

Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> wrote:
> It shouldn't be syntactic suger but at most an operator which does not =
belong
> to the monad class. One could define (>>) just as an ordinary function
> instead of a class member.

That sounds to me like the best idea so far. =


If (as a human reader of a programme) I see

do a <- thing1
   <expression>

and I notice (perhaps after some modifications) that a is
not present in <expression>, then I /really/ don't want a
change to

do thing1
   <expression>

to change the meaning of the programme.


  J=F3n