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 <- ..."
> mostly before they le
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 about those propositi
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 am
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 Ognyanov Keremidchiev
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, has a high
cost in th
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 relev
1) It's not a problem, it's a improvement in syntax with lowering
verbosity. It's similar with the difference between Pascal and C syntax.
One of the reasons we all love Haskell is because it's not so verbose. I
have asked often why do-block is so different, than non-do-block.
Exchanging "x = foo"
2017-04-16 14:37 GMT+02:00 Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev :
> A small proposition for the next standard.
>
I think every proposal should clearly state the problem it is trying to
solve first, because only after there's some agreement that it is actually
a problem, further discussion is useful.
>
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