Re: [Haskell-cafe] Syntax of 'do'

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David House wrote:

2008/8/29 Philip Weaver :

...

It sounds like you tried to redefine (>>) and (>>=) and make 'do' use the new definitions. This is not possible, regardless of what types you give (>>) and (>>=).

Watch out for rebindable syntax:

http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#re...

Oh, I had no idea! Thanks :).

At first reading, I thought that -XNoImplicitPrelude was required to turn this on. But now I'm not sure: it seems that if you hide Prelude.>>= and Prelude.return, that ought to be enough to make do notation work with your alternative definitions. I'm not at home, so I can't try this right now.

-- -David