let in GHCi#162
Open
MatthijsBlom wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Conversation
MatthijsBlom
requested review from
konsumlamm,
memowe,
pierluc-codes,
smith558,
ulysses4ever and
xogcox
as code owners
ulysses4ever
reviewed
May 6, 2026
| Back in the day, using `let` used to be required when binding in GHCi. | ||
| A bit inconvenient! | ||
| These days you can omit the `let` and enjoy exactly the same result. | ||
| But why, you may wonder, require `let` in the first place? |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's going too much in the weeds. On top of that, I'd avoid forward references at all costs.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR's main contribution is a note about
letnot being needed anymore when binding to names in GHCi.I haven't touched the many
ghci> letoccurrences in the book. Some were already updated (#24), but keeping some or even many of the rest doesn't seem harmful. If it is desired that they are all removed, I'd still like to add a note that both forms exist and are synonymous, so that seeinglets in other older resources will be less surprising.