Syntax for implicit parameters

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <jeff@galconn.com> wrote,

> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> 
> > "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <jeff@galconn.com> wrote,
> >
> > > > Lack of consensus => the status quo stays.
> > > >
> > > > My order of preference:
> > > >
> > > > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > > > 2. [consent].  Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> > > > 3. [hate]  Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
> > > >
> > > > Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
> > >
> > > That would certainly be fine by me.
> >
> > What exactly does (2) imply?  Does it mean we get `with'
> > back or not?
> 
> I'm afraid I misspoke.  I meant (2) with `with'.  Sorry ;-)  I'm happy to nuke `dlet'.

The problem is that implict parameters than clash with both
the HaXML and the new FFI libraries, ie, you can't use both
in a module.  Not nice.

Manuel