Re: bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b

10 Dec 2014

      I should mention that LYAH, in
http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads , says

    The >>= function is pronounced as bind.

RWH, in, http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/monads.html , indicates

    Here, (>>=) is our chaining function. [...] It's often referred to
as “bind”, as it binds the result of the computation on the left to
the parameter of the one on the right.

A Gentle Introduction to Haskell, at
https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/monads.html , says

    The Monad class defines two basic operators: >>= (bind) and return.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads#Definition says

    an operator (>>=) which is pronounced "bind".

In case it's not clear yet, I am firmly against using the name "bind"
to mean (=<<).

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Felipe Lessa  wrote:
...
I'm not sure what Abel's vote is, but I'm -1 on this proposal precisely
because of the issues he explained below.
Cheers,
On 09-12-2014 23:44, Andreas Abel wrote:
...
If there is a bindIO as specialization of (>>=), having a bind as alias
for (=<<) is a bad idea.
In category theory (Kleisli triple), (=<<) is called the extension
operator.
Most of my uses of (=<<) are infix, as a monadic application operator,
so I never felt the need to have a non-operator version of it.
Haskell is all about saving parentheses and being not Scheme, so
f a =<< g b
is definitely preferable over
bind (f a) (g b)
;-)
Cheers,
Andreas
On 10.12.2014 00:35, David Feuer wrote:
...
It's possible I got confused by GHC.Base, which defines
bindIO :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
If that's backwards, then go right ahead and use bind to mean (=<<).
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Gabriel Gonzalez mailto:gabriel439@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding was that bind historically referred to `(=<<)`, not
    `(>>=)`
Either way I am (+1) on this, even if my previous sentence is false.
On 12/9/14, 1:55 PM, David Feuer wrote:
...
On Dec 9, 2014 4:44 PM, "Christopher Done" mailto:chrisdone@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The name for this function is a no-brainer:
    >
    > bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b
    > bind = (=<<)
Since most people use the term "bind" to refer to the >>=
    operator, this would be very confusing.
> For comparison, the not-very-pleasant <$> and <*> each have word
    > alternatives, fmap and ap. Even <> has mappend.
fmap predates <$>, and <$> tends to be used only in certain
    contexts. "ap" has a narrower type than <*>.
> I don’t hold much hope for this, Haskellers love operators as
    much as
    > Perl programmers so few on this list will see the value in
plain old
    > words, but at least I can link to this email in the archives for
    > future reference.
I have nothing against the idea in principle, but that name won't
fly.
_______________________________________________
    Libraries mailing list
    Libraries@haskell.org  mailto:Libraries@haskell.org
    http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
--
Felipe.
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries