Proposal: add liftA4 and liftA5 to match liftM4 and liftM5

[Carter Schonwald]

umm.... you can use  <*> to define the liftAN operations right? Couldn't
you just directly use <*> and pure to define the liftMN ones?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I'm looking to define  liftM = liftA, liftM2 = liftA2, liftM3 =
> liftA3, and (with a modified definition of ap) I'm getting that to work,
> but that leaves liftM4 and liftM5 hanging.
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:30 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone actually want these?  I would have thought we should go the
>> other way and deprecate `liftM3+` in favor of using `<*>`.
>>
>> On Thu Nov 06 2014 at 10:26:36 AM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since Applicative is supposed to be important now, I figure we should
>>> get these in.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20141105/fe0a1aef/attachment.html>