Re: [Haskell-cafe] if-then-else as rebindable syntax (was Re: Why does Haskell have the if-then-else syntax?)

David House wrote:

How about we drop the idea of an auxilary cond function, and instead just use a Boolean typeclass?

class Boolean b where isTrue :: b -> Bool isFalse :: b -> Bool

I don't think this covers embedded languages. If everything lives in some monad it might be useful to rebind the if syntax at a type like DSLMonad Bool -> DSLMonad a -> DSLMonad a -> DSLMonad a Independent of how the if syntax works, an if function would still be handy. Maybe even both argument orders, a -> a -> Bool -> a for transforming booleans, and to follow the standard argument order on catamorphisms, and Bool -> a -> a where the conventional if order is good. Brandon