+1 from me, I would love to have named versions of these operators.
Does `ap` still have a Monad constraint or has it been changed to match the
Applicative `<*>` after AMP?
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Done
Is this defined anywhere in base, and if not could it be placed in Control.Monad? I often find myself writing:
fmap (mu bar) (foo zot)
Then I decide to change the type of x, so instead I want to just write:
bind (mu bar) (foo zot)
Which is just like fmap but the function can run in the monad. Similar to traverse:
(Traversable t, Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
As someone who isn’t a fan of operators, I generally am appreciative of alternative regular plain English word versions of functions, which I find easier to type, read and edit. Currently without defining such a handy name, I have to transform the code to this:
mu bar =<
The name for this function is a no-brainer:
bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m bbind = (=<<)
For comparison, the not-very-pleasant <$> and <*> each have word alternatives, fmap and ap. Even <> has mappend.
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.
Ciao
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries