Thomas,
Thanks for the reply. My thinking was that once you have a polymorphic form,
why single out any other? Less moving parts makes for less maintenance, etc.
Best wishes,
--greg
On 6/28/07, Thomas Schilling
On 28 jun 2007, at 21.17, Greg Meredith wrote:
Once you have a polymorphic let, why do you need 'let' in the base language, at all? Is it possible to formulate Haskell entirely with do-notation where there is a standard monad for let environments? Probably this was all discussed before in the design deliberations for the language standard. Pointers would be very much appreciated.
let x = ... in ...
is only equal
do x <- ...; ...
in the Identity monad. Also, why would "do" be more primitive than "let". That way you would have to use monads everywhere. Also, let is treated specially by the type checker (IIRC) and there are many, many other reasons not to do that.
Why would you consider the syntactic sugar do { x <- e; .. } which is just a different way of writing function binding (e >>= \x -> ...) consider more primitive than "let"?
/ Thomas
-- L.G. Meredith Managing Partner Biosimilarity LLC 505 N 72nd St Seattle, WA 98103 +1 206.650.3740 http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com