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