Gracjan Polak wrote:
val = readIORef a=:b = writeIORef a b
Pretty shame := is already reserver :(. There is something alike Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL.GL.StateVar. The use $= for assignment. Generalizing "variables" (in respect to some monad) seems to be often reinvented idea :) Indeed, has anyone tried to summarize possible conflicts between infix operators as they are defined in many places to serve different purpose? e. g. (!) :: Ix i => Array i e -> i -> e The value at the given index in an array. (Data.Array) (!) :: a -> [HtmlAttr] -> a (Text.Html) so if a module imports both modules mentioned above simultaneously, will the compiler complain about (!) and ask to use a qualified name? I had the following experience: when trying to create a convenient syntax to access fields of foreign C structures using appropriate Ptr and field label, I tried to define a combinator for that, and to name it (.) (dot, same as dot-composition defined in Prelude, to look similarly to Java notation) Type signature for my (.) was totally different than Prelude's (.), and semantically it is not composition of functions. However the compiler (GHC) asked to use qualified name. Finally I ended up with the name (-->) which looks like C notation. But who knows, whether someone wishes to use (-->) for other purposes? -- Dimitry Golubovsky Anywhere on the Web