Proposal: Add concatMapM function (#2042)
lemming at henning-thielemann.de
Tue Jan 29 10:42:30 EST 2008
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 12:18 +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > Hi
> > > 1. In favor:
> > > - Twan van Laarhoven
> > > - Isaac Dupree
> > > - Don Stewart
> > > - Neil Mitchell
> > >
> > > 3. Opposed to any additions to the base library:
> > > - Bulat Ziganshin
> Is concatMapM vs concat <$> mapM really such an improvement? Maybe the
> proposal should rather be to remove concatMap, for it is merely a
> 3-character shorter version of concat . map...
"(concat . map f) xs"
is 5 characters longer than
"concatMap f xs"
concat $ map f xs
concat (map f xs)
zipWith (\f -> concat . map f)
So far I used concatMap a lot and thus I think it's addition was valuable.
More information about the Libraries