On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 09:47:31AM +0000, Levent Erkok wrote: > Another place where `:=' bindings are badly needed is the recursive > do-notation (mdo, as supported in hugs.) In an mdo, let bindings have > to be monomorphic, because they are passed back to the mfix loop in a > lambda binding. Hence, if we had :=, we can simply say that mdo only > allows let bindings of the `:=' form, and that would clear up the > whole issue. > > I'm no expert, but I think the new proposal for the arrow notation, > if it allows recursive binding forms, can make use of this facility > as well.
Yes, let bindings in arrow notation must also be monomorphic, but it's nothing to do with recursion. It's because the value being defined is passed as input to the next arrow. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
