On 05/20/2014 11:19 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
I have to admit, I thought that was deliberate; that is, that the proposal was a generalization of pattern guards.
The idea was to extend the "do" notation. So you will never be able to use it for a toplevel declaration, and I originally used a different notation. Hmm the new notation is also ambiguous in a statement. What's supposed to be the difference between. exp <- exp === exp === stmt and pat <- exp === stmt I guess the "<-" in patten guards is a bit miss leading too, as it has nothing to do with monads. It should be a "=" (doesn't work of course) or a "~". I guess the problem is that <- does two things which can be useful individually 1. (>>=) i.e. extract value from monad (what the new <- or ! should do) 2. Assign/Pattern match it. same as("=" in let, "<-" in Pattern guards) too much chaos! silvio