Proposal: add ifM and whenM to Control.Monad

[Edward Kmett]

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.7.0.0/docs/src/Data-Bool.html#bool


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Mario Pastorelli <
pastorelli.mario at gmail.com> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140421/1c5d67c6/attachment.html>