On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Alexander Solla <alex.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Matthew <wonderzom...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> With do notation, I can write something like this:
>>
>> do
>> foo <- callFoo x
>> bar <- callBar x
>> return (baz)
>>
...
> The short answer is to write a "one liner" using (>>=) and (>>), unless you
> need to bind more than one value to a variable. In that case, you should
> use an applicative interface, if available and otherwise possible, and
> finally do-notation.
But the longer answer would be, it depends! Right? The `do' notation
is clear and easy to follow; it's low maintenance - even if you have
nothing to bind right now, if that comes up in the future, it will
drop right into that `do' block; it's classic Haskell that doesn't
need any explaining to (hardly) anyone. Maybe it's your last choice,
maybe it's my first.
Donn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
