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

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:01:01PM +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:

We've reached the end of the discussion period. Most seemed in favor. Those who suggested adding a new type class for these kind of functors, do you feel OK not doing that (and use Monad =>) with the argument that this distinction is probably too fine grained and having a separate class (which people need to implement) would probably be more of a pain than it's worth? -- Johan

There are '$' and '$!', so it's just pity that '<$>' and '<$!>' would break this naming consistency, because '<$!>' wouldn't be the strict version of '<$>'. Greetings, Daniel