bind :: Monad m =?utf-8?Q?=3D>_?=(a -> m b) -> m a -> m b

[Gershom B]

I humbly suggest, “dnib”.

What could be clearer?

-g


On December 9, 2014 at 10:44:59 PM, David Feuer (david.feuer at gmail.com) wrote:
> I should mention that LYAH, in
> http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads , says
>  
> The >>= function is pronounced as bind.
>  
> RWH, in, http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/monads.html , indicates
>  
> Here, (>>=) is our chaining function. [...] It's often referred to
> as “bind”, as it binds the result of the computation on the left to
> the parameter of the one on the right.
>  
> A Gentle Introduction to Haskell, at
> https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/monads.html , says
>  
> The Monad class defines two basic operators: >>= (bind) and return.
>  
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads#Definition says  
>  
> an operator (>>=) which is pronounced "bind".
>  
> In case it's not clear yet, I am firmly against using the name "bind"
> to mean (=<<).
>  
>  
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Felipe Lessa wrote:
> > I'm not sure what Abel's vote is, but I'm -1 on this proposal precisely
> > because of the issues he explained below.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 09-12-2014 23:44, Andreas Abel wrote:
> >> If there is a bindIO as specialization of (>>=), having a bind as alias
> >> for (=<<) is a bad idea.
> >>
> >> In category theory (Kleisli triple), (=<<) is called the extension
> >> operator.
> >>
> >> Most of my uses of (=<<) are infix, as a monadic application operator,
> >> so I never felt the need to have a non-operator version of it.
> >>
> >> Haskell is all about saving parentheses and being not Scheme, so
> >>
> >> f a =<< g b
> >>
> >> is definitely preferable over
> >>
> >> bind (f a) (g b)
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >> On 10.12.2014 00:35, David Feuer wrote:
> >>> It's possible I got confused by GHC.Base, which defines
> >>>
> >>> bindIO :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
> >>>
> >>> If that's backwards, then go right ahead and use bind to mean (=<<).
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Gabriel Gonzalez > >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My understanding was that bind historically referred to `(=<<)`, not
> >>> `(>>=)`
> >>>
> >>> Either way I am (+1) on this, even if my previous sentence is false.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/9/14, 1:55 PM, David Feuer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 9, 2014 4:44 PM, "Christopher Done" > >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> > The name for this function is a no-brainer:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b
> >>>> > bind = (=<<)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since most people use the term "bind" to refer to the >>=
> >>>> operator, this would be very confusing.
> >>>>
> >>>> > For comparison, the not-very-pleasant <$> and <*> each have word
> >>>> > alternatives, fmap and ap. Even <> has mappend.
> >>>>
> >>>> fmap predates <$>, and <$> tends to be used only in certain
> >>>> contexts. "ap" has a narrower type than <*>.
> >>>>
> >>>> > I don’t hold much hope for this, Haskellers love operators as
> >>>> much as
> >>>> > Perl programmers so few on this list will see the value in
> >>>> plain old
> >>>> > words, but at least I can link to this email in the archives for
> >>>> > future reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have nothing against the idea in principle, but that name won't
> >>>> fly.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Libraries mailing list
> >>>> Libraries at haskell.org  
> >>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Libraries mailing list
> >>> Libraries at haskell.org
> >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Felipe.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>