That isn't the only point. Applicative is also more general than Monad, in
that more things are Applicatives than they are Monads, so this would
enable to use a limited form of do-notation in more code. Also, Applicative
interfaces are more amenable to some static optimizations, since the
effects of an entire applicative expression can be known statically.
- Jake
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:12 AM,
I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor’s paper) was to restore some function-application-style to the whole effects-thing, i.e. it was the very point **not** to resort to binds or do-notation.****
** **
That being said, I’m all for something that will promote the use of the name “pure” over “return”.****
** **
+1 for the Opt-In****
** **
Ph.****
** **
** **
** **
*From:* Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Iavor Diatchki
****
** **
do x1 <- e1****
** **
-- The following part is `Applicative`****
(x2,x3) <- do x2 <- e2 x1****
x3 <- e3****
pure (x2,x3)****
** **
f x1 x2 x3****
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users