On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/29 Philip Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It sounds like you tried to redefine (>>) and (>>=) and make 'do' use the > > new definitions. This is not possible, regardless of what types you give > > (>>) and (>>=). > > Watch out for rebindable syntax: > > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#rebindable-syntax > Oh, I had no idea! Thanks :). > > At first reading, I thought that -XNoImplicitPrelude was required to > turn this on. But now I'm not sure: it seems that if you hide > Prelude.>>= and Prelude.return, that ought to be enough to make do > notation work with your alternative definitions. I'm not at home, so I > can't try this right now. > > -- > -David >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
