Hi, On 06/08/13 06:14, J. Stutterheim wrote:
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)
Rather than proposing a different name, I'm going to challenge the premise of your question. Perhaps it would be better if `return` had no name at all. Consider the following: return f `ap` s `ap` t f <$> s <*> t do { sv <- s ; tv <- t ; return (f sv tv) } These are all different ways of spelling f s t plus the necessary applicative or monadic bureaucracy. But why couldn't we write just the plain application, and let the type system deal with the plumbing of effects? I realise that this may be too open a research area for your project...
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`.
I don't think the choice of name matters. I do think it should be short. Preferably invisible. Adam