On 10 Aug 2007, at 6:42 am, David Roundy wrote:
do x1 <- e1
if x1 then do x2 <- e2
xx <- if x2 then e3
else do x4 <- e4
x5 <- e5
e6 x4 x5
e7 xx x1
else do x8 <- e8
x9 <- e9
e10 x8 x9 x1
x11
Granted. If you desugar nested dos then you need extra parentheses.
(Basically, the invisible curly braces turn visible as parentheses.)
But then, I don't regard this example as readable, and in true
"lots of little functions" style would name the steps. I especially
dislike the irregular indentation one gets with do/if/do.
Anyone remember when Haskell extended list comprehension syntax to
monads? Just as I was about to get my head around it, it went away.
This is the beauty of the do notation, it
allows one to write actual real complicated monadic code in a form
that is actually comprehensible.
It seems we are now in complete agreement except for "comprehensible".
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
