On 09/24/2015 11:43 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Hello *,
+1, just a minor... nitpick, I guess:
-- | Legacy alias for 'pure' return :: Applicative f => a -> f a return = pure
I propse to remove the "Legacy" designation (see below for reasoning). There should probably also be some reference to the Applicative type class, so I'd propose a wording more like: Alias for 'pure' in the 'Applicative' type class. 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. Presumably we aren't talking about removing "return" itself any time in the next, say, 5-10 years...? (That _would_ break a hell of a lot of code.) Anyway, just a (very) minor nitpick to consider.
However, given that `return` is exported by `Prelude` and the examples above are rather artificial, we don't expect this to be a major source of breakage in the case of `return`. In fact, a heuristic grep[5] over Hackage source-code revealed only 21 packages affected.
How many reverse dependencies do those packages have? (I.e. how many packages are going to require at least a version bump.) Regards,