Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: a regressive view of support for imperative programming in Haskell

[Isaac Dupree]

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.

Isaac
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe