RE: Desugaring do-notation to Applicative

While I really like applicative notation, sometimes naming intermediate results can make code a lot more readable. So I think supporting applicative do-notation would be beneficial. Neil On 02/10/13 07:00, p.k.f.holzenspies wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:12:26 +0000 From: To: , Cc: marlowsd@gmail.com, glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org, simonpj@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Desugaring do-notation to Applicative Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor?s paper) was to restore some function-application-style to the whole effects-thing, i.e. it was the very point *not* to resort to binds or do-notation.

That being said, I?m all for something that will promote the use of the name ?pure? over ?return?.

+1 for the Opt-In

Ph.