Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why were unfailable patterns removed and "fail" added to Monad?

On 01/20/12 14:52, Michael Snoyman wrote:

Essentially, I would want:

SomeConstr args <- someAction

to be interpreted as:

temp <- someAction case temp of SomeConstr args ->

I completely agree; perhaps what we really want though is something more akin to a language extension --- say, DisableMonadFailForRefutablePatterns? Cheers, Greg