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

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 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" 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 listLibraries@haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries