Hi cafe, For a while now, I've been wondering why the 'let' keyword in a do block isn't optional. So instead of do ... let x = exp1 y = exp2 z <- exp3 ... you could simply write do ... x = exp1 y = exp2 z <- exp3 ... Where each sequence of let-less bindings is put in a separate binding group. I'm no parsing wizard, but I couldn't come up with any situations in which this would cause ambiguity. To me, the let-less version is easier on the eyes, more consistent with <- bindings, and also makes it less of a hassle to move stuff around. The above probably also holds for list/monad comprehensions, but the explicit let has never really bothered me there. Cheers, Martijn Schrage -- Oblomov Systems (http://www.oblomov.com)