2 ms·
I meant that there being three separate operators makes OCaml's design better than Haskell's. (Of course, this is just my personal opinion.)
by TheAsprngHacker 7y ago
I meant that there being three separate operators makes OCaml's design better than Haskell's. (Of course, this is just my personal opinion.)
- KirinDave 7y agoWell, the reason I'm confused is that Haskell has different binding operators too. Applicatives can't use >>=.
- TheAsprngHacker 7y agoI meant Haskell's do-notation sugar - it only works for monads (or applicatives, assuming ApplicativeDo and absence of dependencies on intermediate results). OCaml's new "binding operators" let you define your own variations of `let` and `and`, which resemble do-notation and therefore have the same cognitive convenience. Then, you can define `let` for functors, etc. You can basically have `let` sugar for any operation that takes a function as the second argument.