On 19 Oct 2015, at 20:52, Henning Thielemann
I see the benefit of ApplicativeDo in the short distance of the value producer and the value naming. E.g. compare
liftA3 (\x y z -> complicatedFunc x y z) produceX produceY produceZ
and
do x <- produceX y <- produceY z <- produceZ pure $ complicatedFunc x y z
Agreed. Furthermore I quite like the way applicative comprehensions read: [complicatedFunc x y z | x <- produceX, y <- produceY, z <- produceZ ] Also, what this example doesn’t show is that sometimes complicatedFunc is actually a complicated *expression* which merely mentions x,y,z each 1 or more times: [ . . . some long code mentioning x . . . . . . and y and x again and now z . . . | x <- produceX, y <- produceY, z <- produceZ ] As Henning says the tradeoffs here are all to do with drawing the eye correctly between the use of x,y,z and the binding of x y x. There is also the fact that x y and z may not ‘naturally’ occur in the right order - the ordering of effects in the producers can easily be significant. Jules