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

John Smith voldermort at
Thu Feb 3 18:40:11 CET 2011

On 03/02/2011 17:41, Roman Leshchinskiy 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'.
> 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

The idea is that if this proposal is accepted for GHC 7.2, other proposals can be put forward for the same version. All 
the changes should land in the same release.

More information about the Libraries mailing list