Generalize filterM to Applicative

[Andreas Abel]

Or you can widen the interpretation of suffix ...M as "effectful", which 
could be a monadic or applicative effect.

On 29.12.2014 16:50, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com
> <mailto:ekmett at gmail.com>> 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 restructuring.
>
> The names of functions matter.
>
> Anachronistic labels confuse.
>
> Leaving filterM with a type signature of Applicative cannot be the
> long-term solution.
>
> -- Kim-Ee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/