Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2006-08-25 at 19:09PDT Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about whether Monad should be defined as
class Functor m => Monad m where ...
It's more complicated now that we have Ross Patterson's "Applicative".
http://haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/libraries/base/Control-Applicative....
FSVO "complicated"... it looks like a Good Thing to me, although I don't like the names much.
Yes, I liked the original name 'Idiom' better. It bears some similarity to 'Monad' in that it has this mysterious quality that immediately made me curious... 8-) 'Applicative' might be somewhat more descriptive, and thus slightly better from a purely technical POV, however, it is quite an ugly name for such a beautiful concept. Cheers, Ben