Re: [Haskell-cafe] extending Do notation

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:39 PM, silvio wrote:

1) >>= flip is ugly

Indeed. Many things are ugly in haskell. Improvements exact their own costs too.

2) you can't use >>= in an if condition

Could you give an example of the if condition you want an >>= in?

3) or imagine you want to fill it in some 3-tuple or a record type.

What does this mean?

4) res <- fmap pureFunction ioFunction === let res = pureFunction { ioFunction}

From a distance, let and monadic bind are just different forms of name binding.

But haskell's let has an effectlessness that makes it declaratively different from its cousin in, say, ocaml. This is no small change you're proposing. -- Kim-Ee