GHC 5.00 release update
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:27:06 +1100
email@example.com (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
> Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:30:34 +1100, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <firstname.lastname@example.org> pisze:
> > > We don't. It would be silly to allow either static or dynamic
> > > bindings, but not both.
> > Heh? I don't understand what you mean. Do you think that
> > we should not support dynamic bindings in where clauses?
> Yes. Unless static and dynamic bindings could be mixed in a single
> declaration block.
> This is also what SimonPJ said.
> It would be an inconsistent state. You could add a static binding to
> 'where' unless there is a dynamic binding there already, in which
> case you have to reorganize the function.
Hmmm, ok. I must have missed that earlier. But what is the
proposal, then. To have dynamic bindings in let only? (I
don't mind, I just want to get rid of `with' as a keyword.)