[Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

[Dimitri DeFigueiredo]

+1

I think this idea is good and should not be taken lightly. I'm a 
newcomer to the community and currently hold a grand total of *zero* 
open source contributions. Obviously, I would like to change this soon, 
but I think it is very *unfair* and makes absolutely no sense to have 
the standard one person one vote rule for decisions involving the libraries.

Let the code produced vote. Maybe weight them by downloads?

Dimitri



On 10/5/15 9:12 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Perhaps we should weigh the +1 and -1s in this thread with the number 
> of lines of Haskell written by the voter? ;)
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gershomb at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On October 5, 2015 at 10:59:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan
>     (bos at serpentine.com <mailto:bos at serpentine.com>) wrote:
>     > I would like to suggest that the bar for breaking all existing
>     libraries, books, papers,
>     > and lecture notes should be very high; and that the benefit
>     associated with such a breaking
>     > change should be correspondingly huge.
>     >
>
>     My understanding of the argument here, which seems to make sense
>     to me, is that the AMP already introduced a significant breaking
>     change with regards to monads. Books and lecture notes have
>     already not caught up to this, by and large. Hence, by introducing
>     a further change, which _completes_ the general AMP project, then
>     by the time books and lecture notes are all updated, they will be
>     able to tell a much nicer story than the current one?
>
>     As for libraries, it has been pointed out, I believe, that without
>     CPP one can write instances compatible with AMP, and also with AMP
>     + MRP. One can also write code, sans CPP, compatible with pre- and
>     post- AMP.
>
>     So the reason for choosing to not do MRP simultaneous with AMP was
>     precisely to allow a gradual migration path where, sans CPP,
>     people could write code compatible with the last three versions of
>     GHC, as the general criteria has been.
>
>     So without arguing the necessity or not, I just want to weigh in
>     with a technical opinion that if this goes through, my
>     _estimation_ is that there will be a smooth and relatively
>     painless migration period, the sky will not fall, good teaching
>     material will remain good, those libraries that bitrot will tend
>     to do so for a variety of reasons more significant than this, etc.
>
>     It is totally reasonable to have a discussion on whether this
>     change is worth it at all. But let’s not overestimate the cost of
>     it just to further tip the scales :-)
>
>     —gershom
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20151005/336d44ef/attachment.html>