Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

I feel that if people are confused about whether to use "let x = ..." or "x <- ...", changing the syntax to remove the "let" won't help. On 16 April 2017 at 21:32, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote: > They are confused about when one should put "let x = ..." or "x <- ..." >

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

They are confused about when one should put "let x = ..." or "x <- ..." mostly before they learn what is monad. 2017-04-16 21:15 GMT+03:00 Francesco Ariis : > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev > wrote: > > Okay, sorry for taking your time

SV: Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

I like this proposition. I am not sure how to argue in favour as the measure is almost purely adressing an issue of esthetics. But I do like it, and I also find the comparison between C and Pascal relevant. I guess a patch or pull request will be the best way to move forward and shake some

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

2017-04-16 17:21 GMT+02:00 Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev : > 1) It's not a problem, it's a improvement in syntax with lowering > verbosity. > If it's not a real problem, it probably shouldn't be done: Every tiny change in the syntax, even if it's somehow backwards compatible,

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

Okay, sorry for taking your time about those propositions. I'm just thinking of ways for improving future Haskell. My feedback is mostly from talking with people and trying to teach them in Haskell. 2017-04-16 20:04 GMT+03:00 Sven Panne : > 2017-04-16 17:21 GMT+02:00 Vassil

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote: > Okay, sorry for taking your time about those propositions. I'm just > thinking of ways for improving future Haskell. My feedback is mostly from > talking with people and trying to teach them in Haskell. As others, I

Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

Hello! A small proposition for the next standard. 1) It is to lower verbosity with omitting 'let' keyword in do-notation and use only (=) for describing let/pure blocks. Example: currently: main = do let x = expression1... let y = expression2... z <- action1 putStrLn (x ++ y