On 28 Mar 2009, at 10:13, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:05:02 PM, you wrote:
In all honesty, I find the idea of adding yet more "imperative" looking stuff to do notation an appalling idea. We already get problems because people read do notation and think it means "execute this in sequence" (see threads about lazy IO not doing what's expected for example).
well, people already have problems understanding haskell, not only 'do' statements
As an aside, while these are merely syntactic sugars, I find the idea of attacking the problem with syntax to be somewhat silly as well. This simply adds a special syntax for another couple of cases that crop up occasionally. What do we do when we have another, and another, and another, do we keep just adding more and more syntax?
i'm just making industrial programming, with lots of imperative code and 'do' syntax (compared to imperative languages) is somewhat limited. so, what i want to have is better syntax. i don't have any idea whether semantics can be somewhat improved to fix those shortages
I'm not sure why "industrial programming" means "programming not in a functional style". It certainly doesn't mean that where I work. Bob