On February 3, 2011 09:42:03 Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
I also think that the proposal in general is too disruptive at this stage. But we shouldn't abandon the idea of improving things completely. Looking at the current version on the wiki page linked from the proposal (http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Functor-Applicative-Monad_Proposal), there are several different changes in the one proposal:
(1) renaming fmap -> map (2) adding join to Monad (3) removing (>>) from Monad (4) moving fail to MonadFail (this is a language change) (5) adding Applicative as a superclass of Monad .. and maybe anything else I missed
Not that I'm not keen on most of these, but I believe the key part of the original proposal was (5). It's even reflected in the subject. :) Possibly there is a good argument that (4) should be considered concurrently as well (i.e., (5) or (4) and (5)) in order to avoid large upheaval twice. Cheers! -Tyson