Generalize filterM to Applicative

Kim-Ee Yeoh ky3 at
Mon Dec 29 15:50:21 UTC 2014

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at> wrote:

> Is it "madness" to want to avoid namespace proliferation and maximize the
> usefulness of an existing combinator now that the constraints that forged
> it have changed to allow it to be slightly more permissive?

Madness is such strong language for this august list.

May I speak on behalf of haskell newcomers for a time?

Haskell places such an emphasis on uniformity and regularity. Functions
with names that end with M once meant they were monadic variants of those
that don't. That's no longer uniformly the case, because of the FAM

The names of functions matter.

Anachronistic labels confuse.

Leaving filterM with a type signature of Applicative cannot be the
long-term solution.

-- Kim-Ee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list