Re: [Haskell-cafe] Alternative name for return

I have to admit that I am a bit torn about using `pure`. On the one hand, if you actually have a pure value, it feels pretty intuitive to me. But what about pure (putStrLn "Hi") `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value... Or is there another way to interpret the word pure in this context? As for Applicative, I can add (and have added) the Applicative constraint in the Monad definition for my project, so I will also have to write an Applicative instance for my monads. - Jurriën On 6 Aug 2013, at 09:50, Erik Hesselink wrote:

What about `pure`? It's already used in applicative, and has the motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic version).

Erik

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:14 AM, J. Stutterheim wrote:

...

Dear Cafe,

Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function in Monad, what would be a "better" name for it? (for some definition of better)

N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better name for `return`.

- Jurriën _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe