Is it really so bad to use an explicit let when you need mutually recursive bindings? On Aug 8, 2012 1:51 PM, "Martijn Schrage" <mart...@oblomov.com> wrote:
> On 08-08-12 19:01, Simon Hengel wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:22:39PM -0400, David Feuer wrote: > > Changing scoping rules based on whether things are right next to each > other? No thanks. > > > Would expanding each let-less binding to a separate let "feel" more > sound to you? > > > That was actually my first idea, but then two declarations at the same > level will not be in the same binding group, so > > do x = y > y = 1 > > would not compile. This would create a difference with all the other > places where bindings may appear. > > However, having scope depend on things being next to each other (or > rather, not having anything in between) is not new. Template Haskell > declaration splices already cause separate binding groups for top-level > declarations. Moreover, the new scope rule only holds for let-less > bindings. If you use explicit lets nothing changes. > > -- Martijn > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
