Functor => Pointed => Applicative => Monad

[wren ng thornton]

On 11/29/10 3:39 AM, John Smith wrote:
> 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:

I'm not aware of any intention to do so, but I wholeheartedly approve of 
doing so. I'd probably leave fmap being called fmap though, in order to 
minimize breakage. Also, that enables the cute name for

     class Bifunctor f where
         gmap :: (a -> b) -> f a c -> f b c

-- 
Live well,
~wren