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

John Smith voldermort at
Thu Feb 3 18:38:44 CET 2011

On 03/02/2011 16:42, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> 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
> disruption.
> Cheers,
> Ganesh
> ===============================================================================
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
> ===============================================================================

This proposal (as in the patches attached to the ticket) is only (5). The wiki page is much broader than this.

More information about the Libraries mailing list