Chris Eidhof wrote:
On 26 nov 2007, at 19:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
I wonder whether it is a typical mistake of beginners
to write 'return' within a do-block (that is, not at the end)
and if it is possible to avoid this mistake by clever typing.
In a proper monad 'return' can be fused with subsequent actions,
and thus it is not necessary within a sequence of actions.
However, although sensible, 'return' is also not required at the end
of a block.
Has someone already thought about a replacement for monads?
I also made that mistake in the beginning, I used return instead of
lets. I don't think it's a big problem, most users will find out once
they've got some more experience, and it doesn't really do any harm.
It might be possible for the compiler to emit a warning when a return is
used in the middle of a do block as the top level operator on a line.
OTOH, that still wouldn't catch something like "when (x == 0) (return
())" which doesn't do what an imperative programmer expects.
Reinier
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
