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

Tyson Whitehead twhitehead at
Thu Feb 3 16:26:27 CET 2011

On February 3, 2011 09:42:03 Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> 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

Not that I'm not keen on most of these, but I believe the key part of the 
original proposal was (5).  It's even reflected in the subject.  :)

Possibly there is a good argument that (4) should be considered concurrently 
as well (i.e., (5) or (4) and (5)) in order to avoid large upheaval twice.

Cheers!  -Tyson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list