LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

[Philippa Cowderoy]

I've added the gist of this to the relevant github thread. I've been 
clear that I don't consider it a blocker for the proposals.

On 18/12/2018 14:45, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> On 18/12/2018 13:41, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Philippa wrote:
>>
>> > It's a lot easier to estimate ecosystem impact given a switch that'll
>> > find all the resulting errors and give everyone a chance to fail any
>> > tests.
>>
>> Yes, a good point.
>>
>> But just to be clear, the impact of some changes go well beyond what can
>> be assessed by looking at impact on an existing code base alone.
>> And that is one reason for why MRP has been, and remains, so
>> controversial.
>
>
> Sure. I think the one conceptual shift do-uses-*> would create is that 
> do notation no longer (except in the degenerate tail case) always 
> brings a Monad constraint, instead it would bring Applicative unless 
> something is bound with <-. If I'm right then that's certainly a long 
> way short of MRP per se, which I'm not interested in discussing at 
> this point :)
>
> I'm not sure how much of a problem that would create for teachers - I 
> imagine it depends very much on one's style, as it can even reinforce 
> the idea that Monad is partly about (unconstrained) binding! Which is 
> a plus if you like making the connection to ANF to some extent and 
> letting people think about a family of machine models. I think that's 
> something it might even be nice to let students play with in some 
> circumstances? Though I've done all my teaching 1:1 or with very small 
> groups myself and generally not to first year undergraduates. Nor have 
> I seen how AMP is affecting teaching in general properly.
>
> Certainly something I'd be happy to talk about more if and when 
> there's time - realistically there's no good reason to hold up AMP 
> over this when it could be treated as a third proposal which depends 
> on AMP and which MRP mandates. Should I find a TLA for it?
>
> Is there somewhere else I should be pasting my thoughts here to? Any 
> other comments? If I'm wasting people's time I'd rather stop, but if 
> this is a viable proposal refactoring that might be another matter.
>
> Cheers,
> Philippa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime