I agree with this. We'll move GHC to implement any consensus.
My own opinion is that
expr :: = ... | do { stmts }
stmts :: = .. | rec { stmts }
is the cleanest story. I guess that we should ensure that
do rec { stmts }
means what it looks like.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 16 September 2003 18:09
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Syntax extensions: mdo and do...rec
|
| Dear Haskellers,
|
| A questions.
|
| The do-notation has been extended to support recursive bindings by
using
| the "mdo" keyword. The do-notation has also been extended (through
Ross
| Patterson's preprocessor, and now also GHC) to support programming
| with arrows. In that context, a different syntax, using the keyword
"rec",
| is used to enable recursive bindings.
|
| It seems somewhat confusing to have distinct syntax for what appears
| to be very closely related purposes. Would it be possible have just a
| single syntactic extension to enable recursive bindings in either
context?
| (Presumably the "rec" version is a bit more flexible in that it can be
| applied to a subset of the bindings in a do-construct.)
|
| Best regards,
|
| /Henrik
|
| --
| Henrik Nilsson
| Yale University
| Department of Computer Science
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| _______________________________________________
| Haskell mailing list
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
