I agree with this. We'll move GHC to implement any consensus. My own opinion is that expr :: = ... | do { stmts } stmts :: = .. | rec { stmts } is the cleanest story. I guess that we should ensure that do rec { stmts } means what it looks like. Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: haskell-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | nilsson@cs.yale.edu | Sent: 16 September 2003 18:09 | To: haskell@haskell.org | Subject: Syntax extensions: mdo and do...rec | | Dear Haskellers, | | A questions. | | The do-notation has been extended to support recursive bindings by using | the "mdo" keyword. The do-notation has also been extended (through Ross | Patterson's preprocessor, and now also GHC) to support programming | with arrows. In that context, a different syntax, using the keyword "rec", | is used to enable recursive bindings. | | It seems somewhat confusing to have distinct syntax for what appears | to be very closely related purposes. Would it be possible have just a | single syntactic extension to enable recursive bindings in either context? | (Presumably the "rec" version is a bit more flexible in that it can be | applied to a subset of the bindings in a do-construct.) | | Best regards, | | /Henrik | | -- | Henrik Nilsson | Yale University | Department of Computer Science | nilsson@cs.yale.edu | _______________________________________________ | Haskell mailing list | Haskell@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell