Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > > It's not a big deal. > > You can probably replace both those bindIOName uses with bindMName (i.e > (>>=)), in TcRnDriver. That will just make GHCi generate code with uses of > overloaded (>>=) that must be evaluated, rather than calling bindIO > directly. It should work just fine, but it'll make everything a tiny bit > slower and more indirect. If it simplified the code a lot, then fine, but > it doesn't really. So I'm inclined to leave it. >
That's fine; I don't know why my search didn't turn that up (perhaps it's referenced in some weird indirect way). If we're going to keep thenIO, we should surely define (*>) = (>>) = thenIO, right?
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
