I'm +1 on whenM and unlessM - those I have wanted and think are very worthwhile. Regardless of the naming convention stuff (which I have never even been aware of in my day-to-day coding with Haskell), I think these are the right names, and they also match the naming with monad-loops (`whileM`, etc). I'd be -1 on mwhen, munless, etc.

I'm +/-0 on ifM, but that doesn't seem to be in the original proposal anyway. I can see the value in it, but I've never really needed it. I would probably use f >>= bool x y in practice.

- ocharles


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Evan Laforge <qdunkan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Bardur Arantsson <spam@scientician.net> wrote:
> On 2014-04-21 17:47, Edward Kmett wrote:
>> I, for one, could get behind just taking ifM, whenM, unlessM for these
>> operations, proper naming conventions aside.
>>
>> They've been independently reinvented in 60+ packages with these exact
>> names.
>>
>> If we do this, over time we'll save another 60+ packages the trouble of
>> doing the same thing.
>
> +1 (for the proposal, based on exactly the above summary)

+1 from me too, because I have the same functions with these names in
my non-cabal packages.

There might be a lot of non-cabal whenM etc. out there.

And you're still missing a few with more specific type signatures, e.g. xmonad's whenX.
 
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com                                  ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries