On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Edward Kmett
Is it "madness" to want to avoid namespace proliferation and maximize the usefulness of an existing combinator now that the constraints that forged it have changed to allow it to be slightly more permissive?
Madness is such strong language for this august list. May I speak on behalf of haskell newcomers for a time? Haskell places such an emphasis on uniformity and regularity. Functions with names that end with M once meant they were monadic variants of those that don't. That's no longer uniformly the case, because of the FAM restructuring. The names of functions matter. Anachronistic labels confuse. Leaving filterM with a type signature of Applicative cannot be the long-term solution. -- Kim-Ee