Syntax for implicit parameters

[Sven Panne]

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> [...]
> 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)?

I'm getting a little bit lost in this thread: Everybody seems to
agree that stealing identifiers is bad, stealing a *very* useful
identifier ('with') is *very* bad, and Alastair promised to synch
Hugs with GHC, so why don't we adopt (1)?

Confused,
   Sven