Re: 2014 Applicative => Monad proposal

For the record I'm actually -1 on including Pointed. My experience is that there are very few uses for the class that permit you to reason about your code without one-off ad hoc reasoning based on the particular instance you are given. Now, the Apply and Bind classes on the other hand... =) Though, to be fair, I couldn't seriously propose including either of those, either. Even I can't be bothered to instantiate them all the time! -Edward On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andreas Abel wrote:

+1 AMP +1 MINIMAL +1 Pointed in base

On 24.05.2013 03:39, John Lato wrote:

...

+1 for AMP (with or without DefaultSignatures) +1 for MINIMAL pragma

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Dan Burton >> wrote:

I think that removing return from the Monad class and making it an alias of pure is the Right Thing to Do, but not yet. The proposal, as it stands, is very tasteful about how little it breaks. Let's keep `return = pure` on the back-burner for a while. ______________________________**_________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org mailto:Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/librarieshttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

______________________________**_________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/librarieshttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY

andreas.abel@ifi.lmu.de http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~**abel/ http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/

______________________________**_________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/librarieshttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries