Hello,
I find the naming of values that is introduced by the do notation
useful and I am not at all convinced that the extra sugar that is
being proposed here makes the language simpler. It seems to me that
the only way to know that a piece of code is safe would be to:
i) do the translation in
Hope you don't mind my butting in.
If you're looking for a compelling use case to make programming with
monads more natural in Haskell, I'd say STM makes for a good one. There
is no question there as to whether a monad is the right way to do STM;
it is required.
In working on some code
Put differently, I don't see a compelling use-case for the proposed
syntax extension. But I've seen many misused monads.
A compelling use-case:
http://darcs.haskell.org/yhc/src/libraries/core/Yhc/Core/Simplify.hs
Look at coreSimplifyExprUniqueExt
-- helpers, ' is yes, _ is no
