Re: A new view of guards

[Andrew Moran]

Brian Boutel writes:

> The <- syntax worries me a bit, because in the comprehension use it has a
> different type, but the let syntax is available, and one can write "let p =
> e" "for p <- e". I think that, to reduce possible confusion, I would use,
> and teach, the let form. Given that, I don't object to the funny use of <-.

Good point, but now one has too many ='s:

    simplify (Plus e e') | let (Val 0) = s  = s'
                         | let (Val 0) = s' = s
                         | otherwise        = Plus s s'
                         where
                             s  = simplify e
                             s' = simplify e'

I think that's very confusing too.

Cheers,

Andy