But it would be in line with <- bindings in the do notation, so maybe it wouldn't feel so wrong.
I was about to post this exact example. do x <- return 1 x <- return x return x seems to work just fine (the answer is 1). I'd even be ok with =-in-do being non-recursive like <- -- ryan On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Tillmann Rendel < rendel@informatik.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
Hi,
Martijn Schrage wrote:
Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let "feel" more
sound to you?
That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same level will not be in the same binding group, so
do x = y y = 1
would not compile. This would create a difference with all the other places where bindings may appear.
But it would be in line with <- bindings in the do notation, so maybe it wouldn't feel so wrong.
Tillmann
______________________________**_________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafehttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe