Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

Reasoning: I happen to rather like "return" for purely pedagogical purposes since it lets you pretend (as a sufficient-for-beginners approximation) that code in the do-notation in IO is imperative code and "return" is the usual name for what it does in that context. I think that has a certain value, but "Legacy" is quite off-putting.

+1. I like the proposal to merge pure/return into a single thing, but I rather prefer the name "return" for all the same pedagogical reasons it was originally chosen. -- Live well, ~wren