2017-04-16 14:37 GMT+02:00 Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev <var...@gmail.com>:
> A small proposition for the next standard.
>
I think every proposal should clearly state the problem it is trying to
solve first, because only after there's some agreement that it is actually
a problem, further discussion is useful.
> 1) It is to lower verbosity with omitting 'let' keyword in do-notation and
> use only (=) for describing let/pure blocks. [...]
>
As has been discussed quite a few times on this and other Haskell-related
lists, "verbosity" is a very subjective measure, and the number of
characters to type is one of the worst metrics for evaluating the
usefulness of a feature.
In our example at hand, "let" is a very useful syntactic cue, and the
visual difference between "x = foo" and "x <- foo" is a bit low IMHO. One
can probably remove a lot of other syntactic stuff from Haskell and still
keep it parsable by machines, but I think that's a non-goal. Remember that
e.g. the entropy of English text is around 1 bit per character, but we
don't speak binary, for a good reason. :-)
2) Second proposition is every pure expression ('let') in do-block to have
> visibility in whole block, just like top-level function is visible in whole
> module. Currently there is difference in visibility depending on that if a
> function is in do-block or is outside it.
>
I think the difference is there for a good reason: The desugaring rules are
easy to comprehend. With your proposal things get complicated. Take e.g. a
slightly modified version of your example (which can easily be complicated
much more by alternating the different forms of bindings):
> main = do
> z <- action x
> x = expression1 y
> y = expression2 z
>
> putStrLn (x ++ y ++ z)
>
What is the meaning of this? And what problem exactly is this part of the
proposal trying to solve?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
