Re: Extending the do-notation

Sebastien Carlier wrote:

I'm constantly amazed by the number of tricks one has to know before he can write concise code using the do-notation [...]

In my experience it is not the do-notation itself, but the mixture of monadic actions and higher-order functions. But after a while you´ll really like it. :-)

Another question concerning the do-notation: I noticed that most parts of ghc do not use it. Is it because the code was written before the notation was available, because the do-notation is too weak to express these parts, or for another fundamental reason ?

It's only because of historical reasons, nothing more. Cheers, Sven