Doesn't for already exist, in Data.Traversable? Except that for =
flip traverse.
http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=for
Cheers,
-Matthew
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Johannes Waldmann
Good: we have mapM, and we have forM ( = flip mapM ) .
Sure this is just a convenience, and indeed "forM xs $ \ x -> do ..." is quite handy, especially if "xs" is really small, and "..." is some larger expression.
Bad: we have map, but we are missing: for ( = flip map ) .
The function is very convenient, for the same reasons as above. I can't remember how often I typed "for = flip map" in a source file. I never put this definition in a module either, since the import statement would be longer than the definition.
So, I'm all for "for" .
In Data.List? In the Prelude? (Should put it right next to "map".)
- J.W.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe