3 ms·
This is a bit surprising. Why replace `>>` with `*>` "because it's more modern"? Can't you just stick with what's working? The former hasn't been deprecated.
by tome 2y ago
This is a bit surprising. Why replace `>>` with `*>` "because it's more modern"? Can't you just stick with what's working? The former hasn't been deprecated.
- mbwgh 2y agoYou are absolutely correct and I was an idiot without a proper understanding of premature abstraction or unnecessary complexity. If I were to start a new side-project using Haskell today (I probably won't), I would just stick to do-notation and even concrete types (instead of mtl-style or what have you) where possible.