On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:34 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
The trouble with monad comprehensions was that it became far too
easy to
write ambiguous programs, even when you thought you were just
working with
lists.
One solution was already suggested: to make the comprehension
syntax be pure
synta
> The trouble with monad comprehensions was that it became far too easy to
> write ambiguous programs, even when you thought you were just working with
> lists.
One solution was already suggested: to make the comprehension syntax be pure
syntactic sugar whose semantics depends on the semantics of
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:50:57PM +, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Paul Hudak wrote:
> >Minor point, perhaps, but I should mention that : is not special syntax
> >-- it is a perfectly valid infix constructor.
>
> But Haskell 98 does treat it specially: you can't import Prelude hiding
> ((:)), o
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Paul Hudak wrote:
Minor point, perhaps, but I should mention that : is not special
syntax -- it is a perfectly valid infix constructor.
But Haskell 98 does treat it specially: you can't import Prelude hiding
((:)), or rebind it locally, or refer to it as Prelude.:. In
Paul Hudak wrote:
Minor point, perhaps, but I should mention that : is not special syntax
-- it is a perfectly valid infix constructor.
But Haskell 98 does treat it specially: you can't import Prelude hiding
((:)), or rebind it locally, or refer to it as Prelude.:. In fact I've
always wondere
