bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b

[Andreas Abel]

On 10.12.2014 17:33, John Lato wrote:
> I don't really understand why people want this. What's wrong with (=<<)
> ?  I kind of feel like a named function should be no longer than that.

You are right, we do not need a alphabetic version of every operator. 
We do not have

   plus = (+)

either.  Why take another good name from the user, just to avoid using 
an operator in parentheses?

I am -1 on the whole business here.

Cheers,
Andreas

>
> I don't object, especially if others think it's useful (and many clearly
> do), but I guess it's not to my taste.
>
>
> On 08:02, Wed, Dec 10, 2014 David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.feuer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     joinMap looks to me like the best name, because it does just what it
>     says on the box:
>
>     join . fmap f $ m
>     = (m >>= return . f) >>= id --Functor/Monad law
>     = m >>= (\x -> return (f x) >>= id) --associativity
>     = m >>= (\x -> f x) --left identity
>     = m >>= f --eta reduction
>     = f =<< m
>
>     Christopher Done <chrisdone at gmail.com <mailto:chrisdone at gmail.com>>
>     writes:
>
>      > Is this defined anywhere in base, and if not could it be placed in
>      > Control.Monad? I often find myself writing:
>      >
>      > fmap (mu bar)
>      >      (foo zot)
>      >
>      > Then I decide to change the type of x, so instead I want to just
>      > write:
>      >
>      > bind (mu bar)
>      >      (foo zot)
>      >
>      > Which is just like fmap but the function can run in the
>      > monad. Similar to traverse:
>      >
>      > (Traversable t, Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
>      >
>      > As someone who isn’t a fan of operators, I generally am appreciative
>      > of alternative regular plain English word versions of functions,
>     which
>      > I find easier to type, read and edit. Currently without defining such
>      > a handy name, I have to transform the code to this:
>      >
>      > mu bar =<<foo zot
>      >
>      > The name for this function is a no-brainer:
>      >
>      > bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m bbind = (=<<)
>
>     I'm -1 on the *name* `bind`, because as others have mentioned, I
>     feel bind
>     has the same type as (>>=).
>
>     That said, I'm +1 on the *idea* - if we can find a better name.
>     `joinMap`
>     doesn't seem too bad, as was recently suggested, but I'll settle on
>     anything other than `bind`
>
>     -- ocharles
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://www.haskell.org/__mailman/listinfo/libraries
>     <http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>


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

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

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