Jules Bean wrote:
do
a <- m
b <- n
l a x b y
becomes
l (<- m) x (<- n) y
...with, I suppose, left-to-right evaluation order. This looks 'almost
like substitution' which is the goal.
Almost?
So then (flip f) (<- m) (<- n) does *not* equal f (<- n) (<- m) ?
There goes any hope of my understanding future Haskell code. (<- n) sure
looks like an operator section to me, and more importantly a first class
Haskell object. What human parsing this would not see a mere function
application?
And I guess this makes the following complete nonsense:
do
let a = (<- m)
let b = (<- n)
l a x b y
What about
do
let (b,a) = ((<- n),(<- m))
-- many lines of code
l a x b y
Who can say that b was evaluated before a?
I hope the language syntax does not evolve beyond my merely mortal
ability to desugar it?
Dan Weston
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
