> But it would be in line with <- bindings in the do notation, so maybe it wouldn't feel so wrong.
I was about to post this exact example. do x <- return 1 x <- return x return x seems to work just fine (the answer is 1). I'd even be ok with =-in-do being non-recursive like <- -- ryan On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Tillmann Rendel < ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > Martijn Schrage wrote: > >> Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let "feel" more >>> sound to you? >>> >>> That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same >> level will not be in the same binding group, so >> >> do x = y >> y = 1 >> >> would not compile. This would create a difference with all the other >> places where bindings may appear. >> > > But it would be in line with <- bindings in the do notation, so maybe it > wouldn't feel so wrong. > > Tillmann > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe> >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe