On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:27:45PM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote: > David Roundy wrote: > >The only cost is that > >this syntax relies on the do notation, and thus makes the desugaring of > >that do notation slightly more complicated when used. > > If I understand correctly, > > do > blah > f (do > foo > bar (<- action) > ) > blah > > has an ambiguity: which do-block is the action bound in? I can easily > imagine myself being frustrated at having to refactor my code if the > defined answer is not the one I want at the moment.
It doesn't have an ambiguity, because it's defined to be bound in the innermost do loop. This isn't a new concept, the <- syntax in the existing do notation has the same behavior. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
