"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
>
> > "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
