Functor => Pointed => Applicative => Monad

[John Smith]

Is there any intention to reorganise the standard class hierarchy, arranging them logically instead of in order of 
invention? I plagiarised the following example from 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1634911/can-liftm-differ-from-lifta and Trac:

class Functor f where
     map :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

class Functor f => Pointed f where
     pure :: a -> f a

class Pointed f => Applicative f where
     (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
     (*>) :: f a -> f b -> f b
     (<*) :: f a -> f b -> f a

class Applicative m => Monad m where
     (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
     (>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b
     join :: m (m a) -> m a

     f >>= x = join (fmap f x)
     m >> k = m >>= \_ -> k
     join x = x >>= id

This would eliminate the necessity of declaring a Monad instance for every Applicative, and eliminate the need for sets 
of duplicate functions such as [fmap,liftM,map,liftA], [(<*>),ap], and [concat,join].

fail should be removed from Monad; a failed pattern match could error in the same way as is does for pure code. The only 
sensible uses for fail seem to be synonyms for mzero.