[Ur] Too restrictive syntax sugar for monads (bug #127).

[Adam Chlipala]

Alexei Golovko wrote:
> 18.02.2012, 17:21, "Adam Chlipala"<adamc at impredicative.com>:
>    
>> Here's a simple example that motivates the design choice:
>>
>> ...
>>      
> Thank you, this sounds reasonable now, though I whatever prefer non-restrictive alternative. Maybe, just have both? I think, reversed semicolon ("⁏", U+204F) is good notation for my case ;-)
>    

Hm... right now that sounds more complex than the corresponding payoff.  
Maybe some day Ur will support user-defined infix operators and you can 
implement this in a library. :)

> And yet one typo: in subsubsection 9.1.2, missed binary operator '=' (line 2173).
>    

Thanks; fixed.