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

Sittampalam, Ganesh ganesh.sittampalam at
Thu Feb 3 18:03:30 CET 2011

Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> 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?  

I think it's quite common in the case where the Monad is a MonadPlus. I
certainly use that feature.


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

More information about the Libraries mailing list