Functor => Pointed => Applicative => Monad

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 29 November 2010 20:32, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:
> 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

I would prefer to call that "bimap" or something; to me gmap refers to
mapping over a graph.

-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com