RE: "do" notation and ">>"

===== Original Message From Sigbjorn Finne ===== Section 3.14 presents a bunch of identities that hold for "do", but only suggests that these might be used by a Haskell system when desugaring "do" expressions.

The version of the report that I have states, "Do expressions satisfy these identities..." I read this as a requirement, not a mere suggestion. It doesn't read, "might satisfy," or, "can satisfy," but just, "satisfy". Is there a newer version of the report that weakens this? This is not a mere academic curiosity to me. My application needs the ability to redefine ">>" and have it work correctly using "do" notation. I don't yet understand why the inability of Hugs (and GHC, apparently) to support this is anything other than nonconformance with Haskell 98. --- James B. White III (Trey) Center for Computational Sciences Oak Ridge National Laboratory whitejbiii@ornl.gov