Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus

[roconnor at theorem.ca]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, Bas van Dijk wrote:

>> I use (<*>) already for scalar product in NumericPrelude. For me
>> it looks like a commutative operator, which Applicative.<*> is not. The
>> existence of (<*>) in Applicative module is ok for me, but I do not want
>> name clashes with it when automatically imported by Prelude.
>
> Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the '<*>' symbol either. I
> would rather like something which doesn't look commutative and
> features a '$' somewhere to indicate its "applicative" nature.
> However, I don't think we should be proposing name changes in this
> proposal.

FWIW, I personally use <@> for ap in my non-Haskell work, or some other 
variation like @@.  Though I do agree that we shoudn't be proposing name 
changes in this proposal.

-- 
Russell O'Connor                                      <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''