Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We started with 4 suggestions, and as far as I can tell, are
left with only one (- ...).
For the record, my comments on (- ...) where not objections, but
merely thoughts out loud, and I could certainly see myself using
that syntax in a day to day basis.
Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thinking on the semantic issue for the moment:
Can you use (-) outside of a do block?
Good question, but my answer is a strong no! Syntactic sugar for monads
has always been tied to do blocks; promoting it outside of contexts
where do announces that
Hi
Can you combine let and do?
do let x = (- a)
f x
Right. In effect, as a matter of fact, the notation
x - a
would become equivalent to
let x = (- a)
Hmm, interesting. Consider:
let x = 12
let x = (- x)
Currently, in let x = ... the x is in scope on the right hand
Sorry for the double post, I posted with the wrong email address and
haskell-cafe rejected it.
On 8/3/07, Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. In effect, as a matter of fact, the notation
x - a
would become equivalent to
let x = (- a)
Hmm, interesting. Consider:
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
assembler :) it's what our opponents propose - let's Haskell be like
assembler with its simple and concise execution model :)
I feel bad that portions of this thread have gotten a bit ugly. I don't
have any opponents, so far as I know. I am just
Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
( - expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous
``expr`` -- back-ticks make sense for UNIX shell scripters
The latter is not sensible to me at all. It doesn't nest well.
Ah, excellent point! Okay, it's gone then. Everything will then
