| > I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able | > to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad. That would be | > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.prime/2267 and in the | > recent OSCON video. | | I still think that this syntax extension has profound impact and is a | bad idea. Simon's and Neill's use case was the dreaded name-supply monad | where the order of effects really doesn't matter up to alpha-conversion. | The objection to that use case is that monads are not the right | abstraction for that, they're too general Just for the record, I am not arguing that this is the Right Thing; I am quite agnostic about it. But the status quo doesn't seem that great either, and I'm all for experimentation. Same goes for view patterns and record wildcards, for example. Simon