Proposal: Adding Kleisli composition to Control.Monad

[Taral]

On 11/13/06, Taral <taralx at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/06, Donald Bruce Stewart <dons at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> > >     (>=>) :: (Monad m) => (a -> m b) -> (b -> m c) -> (a -> m c)
> > >     (<=<) :: (Monad m) => (b -> m c) -> (a -> m b) -> (a -> m c)
> >
> > Does anyone have an opinion about these guys? :)
>
> I want them. See my timeout patch for a case where I wanted one of
> these and didn't have it (the catch filter expression).

Actually, my tests indicate that (>>>) and (<<<) can be used for any
Monad. So are we defining these again?

-- 
Taral <taralx at gmail.com>
"You can't prove anything."
    -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem