Proposal: Add a strict version of <$> for monads

[Daniel Trstenjak]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:01:01PM +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
> We've reached the end of the discussion period. Most seemed in favor.
> Those who suggested adding a new type class for these kind of functors, do
> you feel OK not doing that (and use Monad =>) with the argument that this
> distinction is probably too fine grained and having a separate class
> (which people need to implement) would probably be more of a pain than
> it's worth?
> -- Johan

There are '$' and '$!', so it's just pity that '<$>' and '<$!>' would
break this naming consistency, because '<$!>' wouldn't be the strict
version of '<$>'.


Greetings,
Daniel