On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 00:15 +0100, Chris Eidhof wrote: > On 26 nov 2007, at 19:48, Henning Thielemann wrote: > > I wonder whether it is a typical mistake of beginners > > to write 'return' within a do-block (that is, not at the end) > > and if it is possible to avoid this mistake by clever typing. > > In a proper monad 'return' can be fused with subsequent actions, > > and thus it is not necessary within a sequence of actions. > > However, although sensible, 'return' is also not required at the end > > of a block. > > Has someone already thought about a replacement for monads? > I also made that mistake in the beginning, I used return instead of > lets. I don't think it's a big problem, most users will find out once > they've got some more experience, and it doesn't really do any harm.
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about something different. Basically, where 'return' is confused for C's return. I have seen this occasionally in #haskell or on the mailinglist, but it doesn't seem to be a big issue. It doesn't come up all that often and it's usually quickly resolved. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe