Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore there must be no lambda between the "monadic splice" and the "do".
I'm curious about this.
One could sugar:
do tax <- getTax
return $ map (\price -> price * (1 + tax)) bill
into:
do return $ map (\price -> price * (1 + (<- getTax))) someNums
Do you not think this is desirable? Is there a negative side-effect
that I'm not noticing?
I sort of see this in the same boat as Neil's example with if/then/else.
The meaning may not be precisely what you'd expect... but mind-reading
is hard, and it's more consistent to just say "find the innermost
containing do block" than make up new rules for each piece of syntax.
Granted, a special case of "it's an error" is far more appealing than
the corresponding special case for if; but I don't yet see a reason for
this exception to the rule either.
--
Chris Smith
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
