Extending the do-notation

[Sebastien Carlier]

> > I'm constantly amazed by the number of tricks one has
> > to know before he can write concise code using the
> > do-notation (among other things, I used to write
> > "x <- return $ m" instead of "let x = m").
> [snip]
> Why do you WANT to write concise code using the do-notation?
> Has someone revived the Obfuscated Haskell Contest, or
> do you find touch-typing difficult?

Which of the following is easier to read (and please forgive
the short variable names) ?

>    x <- return $ m
or
>    let x = m

>    x <- m
>    let (a, b) = unzip x
>    ... -- (and this code uses an extra variable)
or
>    (a, b) <- unzip `liftM` m

Concise does not mean obfuscated. Unnecessarily inflating your code
will not make it more readable. Or am I wrong ?