Okay. Now the following might not make sense at all, but... isn't the abstract concept of a list just a sequence of elements (okay, with a whole lot of extra properties)? So couldn't we write: do { 1;2;3;4 } instead of [1,2,3,4] somehow for some special "list builder" monad? And then do {1;2;3;4 } could be lifted to any kind of structure when you run it through a different builder. Ah, I guess not... I'm not familiar enough with monads. Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
You're right. The list syntax is only for lists in Haskell. It would be nice if the list syntax was overloaded too.
The special list syntax isn't as good, as always proposed. I have collected some advantages of the bare infix notation: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/List_notation