Proposal: add ifM and whenM to Control.Monad

[Andreas Abel]

I still believe in the intelligence of the masses, in particular when it 
comes to the evolution of vocabulary.

Hayoo gives me 14 hits on "ifM", and 0 on "mif".

+1 to ifM/whenM/unlessM
-1 to mif/mwhen/munless

CustomPrelude.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
custom-prelude	

Control.Conditional.	
ifM	:: m bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
cond	

Bamboo.Helper.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m b -> m b -> m b
bamboo	

Control.Monad.Tools.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
yjtools	

Agda.Utils.Monad.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
Agda	

Sindre.Util.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
sindre	

Language.KURE.Combinators.Monad.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
kure	

Test.WebDriver.Commands.Wait.	
ifM	:: m bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
webdriver	

Language.Fixpoint.Misc.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
liquid-fixpoint	

Scion.Utils.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
scion	

Feldspar.Core.Frontend.ConditionM.	
ifM	:: Data Bool -> M a -> M a -> M a
feldspar-language	

Control.Monad.Rosso1.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
rosso	

Control.Monad.Adaptive.MonadUtil.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
Adaptive-Blaisorblade	

Control.Monad.Adaptive.MonadUtil.	
ifM	:: m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
Adaptive	

On 21.04.14 11:35 AM, Mario Pastorelli wrote:
> On 04/21/2014 10:41 AM, Simon Hengel wrote:
>>> A quick heuristic grep over all Hackage packages results in quite a bit
>>> of packages containing the ifM/whenM/unlessM:
>> But that kind of shows that the "expected" names for those functions are
>> ifM/whenM/unlessM.  I would ask the question:
>>
>>      Are there any other useful combinators that would be named
>>      ifM/whenM/unlessM under the current naming convention?
>>
>> If no, then I'm not entirely convinced that we should decide against
>> what seems to be common intuition here.
>
> Breaking API consistency because a lot of people are already doing it
> doesn't feel right. If they are like me, they probably were ignoring the
> naming convention and used the most intuitive name. Once you know forM
> then it's obvious that you append 'M' to functions that "are more
> monadic". Probably mif, mwhen and munless are more compatible with the
> API rules.
>
>>
>> In general, I'm not sure about ifM (as it does not line up with `bool`).
>>
>
> This is the second time that I read about `bool` but I can't find it.
> Can somebody provide a link to it? mbool can be a solution, but not as
> intuitive as mif.
>
> Mario
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>

-- 
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY

andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/