John Lato wrote:
From: Henning Thielemann
No, I think it is already bad enough, that (>>) has type (m a -> m b -> m b) instead of (m () -> m b -> m b). It is like automatically ignoring return values in C. It is too easy to ignore a result that is important.
I agree with Henning on forkIO and the like, but I think the current type of (>>) is right. The name of the function is "anonymous bind" (at least that's what I learned), and its whole purpose of existence is to ignore the value of the first computation while maintaining the context.
It would be nice if there were greater differentiation between (>>) and (>>=), though. Ideally, (>>) would be changed to something longer than (>>=) to prevent accidental mis-typing (i.e. on the keyboard). Not that I expect much support for this proposal!
The main issue (IMO) is that do notation uses (>>) in the desugaring, which in turn means that it supports statements that just throw away not () results. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================