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

[S. Doaitse Swierstra]

> On 25 Sep 2015, at 20:47 , wren romano <wren at community.haskell.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Like in

do a <- return 5
   b <- return 3
   return (a+b)

I think that calling pure return was a big mistake from the very beginning,

 Doaitse


>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries