Proposal: add ifM and whenM to Control.Monad

[Brandon Allbery]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Alexander Berntsen
<alexander at plaimi.net>wrote:

> > If we do this, over time we'll save another 60+ packages the
> > trouble of doing the same thing.
> This looks pragmatic now, but I, for one, think that in the future we
> would be appreciative of our decision to stick to conventions instead
> of giving in to the slippery slope of myopic pragmatism.
>

Descriptivism vs. prescriptivism. Somehow, prescriptivism never seems to
work out in the long run; people do what they do. If they're added as mif
etc., I expect those 60+ later packages will break out as 2 using the
official ones and 58+ using homegrown ifM etc. still because their authors
didn't notice the "weird names" ones.

-- 
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/20140421/2ff8f849/attachment.html>