Re: Syntax for implicit parameters

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

"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?

Manuel

_______________________________________________
Hugs-Bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs