Proposal: add liftA4 and liftA5 to match liftM4 and liftM5

[David Feuer]

Sure you could, but that would be kind of silly. liftMN should either be
defined as liftAN or should be defined using the Monad ops as they have in
the past. I was trying to make Base a little smaller by using the first
approach, but it's not a big deal to repeat everything with specializations
and unfoldings.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Carter Schonwald <
carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/a087875b/attachment.html>