Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus

[Conal Elliott]

I always define Functor instances, so fmap is already covered, leaving me
with a simpler join vs a more complicated bind (comparing complexity of
interface, specification and implementation).

  - Conal

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
> In my experience, defining monads in terms of "fmap" and "join" leads to
> code duplication.  The examples we have seen in this thread---so far---are a
> bit misleading because they compare a partial implementation of a monad
> (join without fmap) with a complete implementation (bind).  Here is an
> example of what I mean:
>
> data SP a               = PutChar Char (SP a)
>                         | GetChar (Char -> SP a)
>                         | Return a
>
> fmapSP :: (a -> b) -> (SP a -> SP b)
> fmapSP f (PutChar c sp) = PutChar c (fmapSP f sp)
> fmapSP f (GetChar k)    = GetChar (\c -> fmapSP f (k c))
> fmapSP f (Return a)     = Return (f a)
>
> joinSP :: SP (SP a) -> SP a
> joinSP (PutChar c sp)   = PutChar c (joinSP sp)
> joinSP (GetChar k)      = GetChar (\c -> joinSP (k c))
> joinSP (Return sp)      = sp
>
> bindSP :: (a -> SP b) -> (SP a -> SP b)
> bindSP f (PutChar c sp) = PutChar c (bindSP f sp)
> bindSP f (GetChar k)    = GetChar (\c -> bindSP f (k c))
> bindSP f (Return a)     = f a
>
> I chose this example because I think that it illustrates nicely how the
> three operators work, I hope that other readers find it useful.
>
> 2011/1/9 Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net>
>
>> * The familiarity advantage of (>>=) is a historical accident. I like to
>> see the language improve over time, rather than accumulate accidents.
>>
>
> I would be surprised if choosing ">>=" was an accident: it seems more
> likely that it was chosen because it matches a commonly occurring pattern in
> functional programs, and abstraction is all about giving names to common
> patterns.  I completely agree with the sentiment of your second sentence but
> I think that adding "join" to the Monad class would be an example of
> "accumulating an accident" rather then simplifying things.
>
> -Iavor
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20110109/9509b7ea/attachment.htm>