Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

[wren romano]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> wrote:
> Reasoning: I happen to rather like "return" for purely pedagogical
> purposes since it lets you pretend (as a sufficient-for-beginners
> approximation) that code in the do-notation in IO is imperative code and
> "return" is the usual name for what it does in that context. I think
> that has a certain value, but "Legacy" is quite off-putting.

+1.

I like the proposal to merge pure/return into a single thing, but I
rather prefer the name "return" for all the same pedagogical reasons
it was originally chosen.

-- 
Live well,
~wren