2 Oct
2013
2 Oct
'13
5:12 a.m.
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