Hi Michael,

Probably, you forgot to Cc: to haskell-cafe.

> I'd be -1 on an operator, I think having a named function for this is a
> good thing for readability of code.
>
> As far as good style: I personally think it is. In classy-prelude, I
> actually export the Foldable-based `mapM` by default, and will regularly
> use that (or forM) for this kind of code.

With AMP, 'fmap' and 'liftM' are identical and we use <$> instead
recently. Likewise, 'traverse' and 'mapM' are identical. If we
introduce an operator, say <:>, we can forget 'traverse' and 'mapM'
when writing code and can write:

        getModificationTime <:> mfile

This looks like function application like Applicative style.

Just a thought.

--Kazu