Re: Extending the do-notation

...

I'm constantly amazed by the number of tricks one has to know before he can write concise code using the do-notation (among other things, I used to write "x <- return $ m" instead of "let x = m"). [snip] Why do you WANT to write concise code using the do-notation? Has someone revived the Obfuscated Haskell Contest, or do you find touch-typing difficult?

Which of the following is easier to read (and please forgive the short variable names) ?

x <- return $ m or let x = m

x <- m let (a, b) = unzip x ... -- (and this code uses an extra variable) or (a, b) <- unzip `liftM` m

Concise does not mean obfuscated. Unnecessarily inflating your code will not make it more readable. Or am I wrong ?