Jules Bean wrote:
do a <- m b <- n l a x b y
becomes
l (<- m) x (<- n) y
...with, I suppose, left-to-right evaluation order. This looks 'almost like substitution' which is the goal.
Almost? So then (flip f) (<- m) (<- n) does *not* equal f (<- n) (<- m) ? There goes any hope of my understanding future Haskell code. (<- n) sure looks like an operator section to me, and more importantly a first class Haskell object. What human parsing this would not see a mere function application? And I guess this makes the following complete nonsense: do let a = (<- m) let b = (<- n) l a x b y What about do let (b,a) = ((<- n),(<- m)) -- many lines of code l a x b y Who can say that b was evaluated before a? I hope the language syntax does not evolve beyond my merely mortal ability to desugar it? Dan Weston