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

[John Smith]

On 04/02/2011 09:50, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>> On 03/02/2011 16:42, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>
>>>    (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
>>>
>> This proposal (as in the patches attached to the ticket) is only (5).
>> The wiki page is much broader than this.
>
> The ticket is rather confusing, in that it says "The proposal is
> detailed in  the wiki". I see the followup comment that the attached
> patches "only implement the new Applicative =>  Monad hierarchy, but do
> not change any names (as proposed on the wiki page)", but that doesn't
> indicate the status of the other things one way or the other.
>
> Also, the relevant attached patch seems to at least add join to Monad:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/attachment/ticket/4834/base_new_mona
> d_hierarchy.dpatch
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ganesh
>
> ===============================================================================
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
> http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
> ===============================================================================

Ticket descriptions are immutable, so I couldn't update it when the patch and wiki diverged. There is a section in the 
Wiki page dedicated to describing the proposed patch.