While I really like applicative notation, sometimes naming intermediate results can make code a lot more readable. So I think supporting applicative do-notation would be beneficial.
Neil On 02/10/13 07:00, p.k.f.holzenspies wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:12:26 +0000 > From: <p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl> > To: <iavor.diatc...@gmail.com>, <dag.odenh...@gmail.com> > Cc: marlo...@gmail.com, glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org, > simo...@microsoft.com > Subject: RE: Desugaring do-notation to Applicative > Message-ID: > <e7f535b24a47d747a07d46c0aa82d43d0ab17...@exmbx21.ad.utwente.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor?s paper) > was to restore some function-application-style to the whole effects-thing, > i.e. it was the very point *not* to resort to binds or do-notation. > > That being said, I?m all for something that will promote the use of the name > ?pure? over ?return?. > > +1 for the Opt-In > > Ph. > > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
