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

wren ng thornton wren at
Fri Feb 4 03:28:42 CET 2011

On 2/3/11 12:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 16:42, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>> 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.
> This proposal (as in the patches attached to the ticket) is only (5).
> The wiki page is much broader than this.

I fully support (5) as an independent proposal, and hence the current 

I also support making specific proposals for (1--4) and resolving them 
according to the dependencies mentioned by Edward Kmett. If we can agree 
to get these proposals all made and worked through, then I'm all for 
delaying the enactment of (5) in order to minimize the total disruption.

Live well,

More information about the Libraries mailing list