Generalize filterM to Applicative

[Kim-Ee Yeoh]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it "madness" to want to avoid namespace proliferation and maximize the
> usefulness of an existing combinator now that the constraints that forged
> it have changed to allow it to be slightly more permissive?


Madness is such strong language for this august list.

May I speak on behalf of haskell newcomers for a time?

Haskell places such an emphasis on uniformity and regularity. Functions
with names that end with M once meant they were monadic variants of those
that don't. That's no longer uniformly the case, because of the FAM
restructuring.

The names of functions matter.

Anachronistic labels confuse.

Leaving filterM with a type signature of Applicative cannot be the
long-term solution.

-- Kim-Ee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20141229/2ea1714a/attachment.html>