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

[Roman Leshchinskiy]

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'.

As someone (Simon M?) quite correctly pointed out, if we do want to change
the standard libraries then this should be done in one big revision. Lots
of small changes which break vast amounts of existing code aren't a good
idea, IMO.

Roman