At 8:24 AM -0500 9/1/1999, George Russell wrote:
>... I suggest that
>introductions to Haskell stop treating "do" as syntactic sugar for (>>)
>and (>>=), and instead
>treat (>>) and (>>=) as syntactic sugar for "do" (if they teach them at
>all). Thus all you
>need to explain is "do" (which is in almost all respects identical to
>impure sequencing
>constructs in impure languages), and the IO typeconstructor. ...
The new (i.e., second) edition of
Simon Thompson, "Haskell: The Craft of Functional Programming",
Addison-Wesley, 1999 (ISBN 0-201-34275-8)
takes exactly this tack. It works very nicely.
--HR
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Richards Jr. Department of Computer Sciences
Senior Lecturer Mail Code C0500
512-471-9525 The University of Texas at Austin
SHC 434 Austin, Texas 78712-1188
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------
