Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

Hi Vassil, I just wanted to say that there is no need to apologize for making a proposal! Cheers, Adam On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 at 00:57 Michael Walker wrote:

I feel that if people are confused about whether to use "let x = ..." or "x <- ...", changing the syntax to remove the "let" won't help.

On 16 April 2017 at 21:32, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote:

...

They are confused about when one should put "let x = ..." or "x <- ..." mostly before they learn what is monad.

2017-04-16 21:15 GMT+03:00 Francesco Ariis :

...

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote:

...

Okay, sorry for taking your time about those propositions. I'm just thinking of ways for improving future Haskell. My feedback is mostly from talking with people and trying to teach them in Haskell.

As others, I am not convinced with the proposal (given the amount of boxes marked "Translation" in the Haskell report, I wish we had a standard way to handling syntactic rewrites; it could come handy in yours and many more cases).

But I am interested in newcomers and their introduction to the language: did they get confused by `let` or just pointed it out as superfluous?

_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

-- Michael Walker (http://www.barrucadu.co.uk) _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime