Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Is there any consensus?

Sittampalam, Ganesh ganesh.sittampalam at
Thu Feb 3 15:42:03 CET 2011

John Smith wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 15:54, Stephen Tetley wrote:
>> I'd contend the proposal is too disruptive to be independent of a
>> language revision, so I'd vote no on the proposal as it stands.
> What do you mean by "independent of a language revision"? The idea is
> that, if accepted, this will be proposed for Haskell'. 

So are you saying that acceptance should be conditional on the language
change? If so I think the part that is a language change should be made
independent of the rest. If accepted by Haskell' it would be implicit
that the libraries would have to follow.

I also think that the proposal in general is too disruptive at this
stage. But we shouldn't abandon the idea of improving things completely.
Looking at the current version on the wiki page linked from the proposal
there are several different changes in the one proposal:

 (1) renaming fmap -> map
 (2) adding join to Monad
 (3) removing (>>) from Monad
 (4) moving fail to MonadFail (this is a language change)
 (5) adding Applicative as a superclass of Monad
 .. and maybe anything else I missed

If you would separate those out into separate items for discussion, I
think it would be easier to reach consensus on each part. All the
accepted pieces could still be scheduled together to minimise



Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: 

More information about the Libraries mailing list