Proposal: add ifM and whenM to Control.Monad

[Brandon Allbery]

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


The API is there to serve its users, not really to dictate to them. If the
common convention is counter to the API structure, perhaps it is the API
that should change.

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b at gmail.com                                  ballbery at sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140421/c246afbe/attachment.html>