[Haskell-cafe] mapM_ -> Monoid.Monad.map

[Henning Thielemann]

  I always considered the monad functions with names ending on '_' a 
concession to the IO monad. Would you need them for any other monad than 
IO? For self-written monads you would certainly use a monoid instead of 
monadic action, all returning (), but IO is a monad. (You could however 
wrap (newtype Output = Output (IO ())) and define a Monoid instance on 
Output.)
  However our recent Monoid discussion made me think about mapM_, 
sequence_, and friends. I think they could be useful for many monads if 
they would have the type:
  mapM_ :: (Monoid b) => (a -> m b) -> [a] -> m b
   I expect that the Monoid instance of () would yield the same efficiency 
as todays mapM_ and it is also safer since it connects the monadic result 
types of the atomic and the sequenced actions. There was a recent 
discussion on the topic:
  http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2008/12/mapm-mapm-and-monadic-statements.html