Rebindable syntax for monads and arrows

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

Ross, Amr,

OK.  I've done rebindable syntax for do-notation, in the HEAD.  Care to
try it?  What this means is that, with -fno-implicit-prelude,
	do { pat <- e; Q }
has the same static semantics as
	e >>= (\x -> case x of { pat -> do { Q }; other -> fail "urk")
where the (>>=) is whatever (>>=) happens to be in scope at that point. 

The situation for arrows is unchanged; no rebindable syntax.  (Partly
because the detailed spec is unclear.)

It does *not* work for mdo, because mdo uses (>>=) at a polymorphic
type.  Just do-notation.  Which is, I hope, enough for you.

Simon

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Amr A Sabry [mailto:sabry at cs.indiana.edu]
| Sent: 24 January 2005 19:40
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Amr A Sabry; ross at soi.city.ac.uk
| Subject: Re: Rebindable syntax for monads and arrows
| 
| > You've convinced me about the monad one; GHC doesn't implement its
own
| > manual!  And it's not hard to fix.   So it's on my to-do list.
| 
| :-)
| 
| > Meanwhile, I'd like to know: if I did the monad thing, would that be
| > useful to you, or just a generally good thing.  And if the former,
how
| > useful?  That is, how hard should I try to get to it?!
| 
| It would definitely be useful but not critical at this point.
| 
| Thanks. --Amr