Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus

[Sebastian Fischer]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
>
> So instead of arguing whether join or
>> (>>=) is easier, more natural or whatever, just let us make both a
>> method of Monad.
>>
>
> Does anyone want to comment on my comparison with restricted monads, where
> '>>=' can be defined, but 'join' cannot?


I am in favor of being able to choose between join and >>= when defining
Monad instances and don't consider consistency with RMonad very important.

Sebastian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20110120/2251b5c4/attachment.htm>