Re: poll: polymorphic let bindings in do

[Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk]

5 Jun 2000 07:22:55 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:

> One reason of having "let" is that we must distinguish between

Or rather: consistent "do" transformation rules yield separate lets,
but we often need one let for many bindings. We should not _need_
separate lets.

> It would be nice to be able to write just

I hope that type signatures fit into this syntax.

-- 
 __("<    Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
 \__/              GCS/M d- s+:-- a23 C+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
  ^^                  W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP+ t
QRCZAK                  5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-