No, it doesn't hurt much right now. But if there Monad of no return proposal goes through, I think it will become pretty much unusable. I therefore think this proposal should be tied to that one.

Separately, the instances don't seem ideal. In particular, I would have expected it to define

x <$ WrapMonad m = WrapMonad (m >> return x)

(*>) = (>>)

but instead it lets both those methods take their default definitions. It also seems to be missing a MonadPlus instance.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:28 AM Henning Thielemann <lemming@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, David Feuer wrote:

> Henning, how hard would it be to add some CPP to make those packages
> work without WrappedMonad with base >= 4.8.0?

I try to prevent CPP whereever possible. I would certainly add my own
WrapMonad. But then, does WrapMonad in 'base' hurt?