Mark Bradley wrote:
$with definitely differentiates it from the way that haskell does let binding and even makes it more obvious about the scoping (with bindings in languages like python/javascript work this way), even hinting that it doesn't to pattern matching.
You don't need to wander to Python and JS. "With" is a well-established idiom in Haskell. Just hoogle "with" and you'll see. This usage fits in with that perfectly. Michael Snoyman wrote:
for consistency, I'll use <- instead of =.
I'm not a user of this, so I am not expressing an opinion here. But just as an information point, <- is not consistent with the usual Haskell "with" idiom either. All of the other examples would use "$". I.e., "with" is a function, not new syntax. "$forall" reminds me of list comprehensions, which is why <- looks natural to me there. -Yitz