Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi Chris,
I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able
to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad.
I think this is a fantastic idea, please do so!
$( expr ) -- conflicts with template haskell
( <- expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous
Other ideas:
``expr`` -- back-ticks make sense for UNIX shell scripters
(| expr |) -- I don't think anything uses this yet
This final (| one |) looks way too much like template haskell, it has
the feel of template haskell, even if it isn't yet in the syntax. Your
(<- proposal) feels a bit like an operator section - I'm not sure if
that is a good thing or a bad thing, but for some reason feels
slightly clunky and high-syntax overhead, perhaps because of the
inevitable space between the <- and expr, and that ()<- are all fairly
high semantic value currently in Haskell, while this extension should
blend in, rather than stand out.
I'm not sure I agree with Neil's misgivings. Certainly <- already has a
high semantic value, but this is a very closely related notion, so I see
that as consistent.
As for the (), well as far as I know they only have two meanings:
grouping and tupling. This seems like a special case of grouping to me.
E.g.:
do
a <- m
b <- n
l a x b y
becomes
l (<- m) x (<- n) y
...with, I suppose, left-to-right evaluation order. This looks 'almost
like substitution' which is the goal.
Jules
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
