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

[Tyson Whitehead]

On February 3, 2011 11:36:42 Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> > You could also opt for making do always require MonadFail in the
> > interest of consistency, even when it wouldn't be strictly required.
> 
> How much value would the separate class have in that case?

I guess that would be the applicative style programming.  :)

Another option might be that failure from incomplete pattern matching should 
maybe just use "error" as is done with the rest of the language.

Does anyone have any feeling regarding whether people are actually coding code 
that depends on pattern matching falling through to custom fail code?

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: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20110203/b197abd2/attachment.pgp>