Re: Proposal: Add a strict version of <$> for monads

20 Dec 2013


      On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:22 AM, John Wiegley  wrote:
...
...
...
...
...
...
Daniel Trstenjak  writes:
...
There are '$' and '$!', so it's just pity that '<$>' and '<$!>' would
break
this naming consistency, because '<$!>' wouldn't be the strict version of
'<$>'.
I agree with Daniel.
What would be the strict version of <$>?

Re: Proposal: Add a strict version of <$> for monads

Johan Tibell