On 29.11.2013 13:19, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
In the same vein as strict fmap, does a strict (<*>) make sense as well?
I think this brings up a good point: strictness annotations may make sense in multiple other scenarios, not just for fmap. Can't we encapsulate similar functionality in a separate function first, wait for it to settle, and then introduce infix versions of it if really necessary? What about seqM :: Monad m => m a -> m a seqM m = m >>= (return $!) This would allow local definitions of f <$!> x = seqM (f <$> x) mf <*!> mx = seqM (mf <*> mx) until the dust settles. If <$!> is really used in abundance, then add <$!> as an infix. The reason why I'm hesitant to introduce a new infix for this is because I think infix is generally less readable than letter-based names. I agree that infix is good to have for functions you use a lot -- to the point where the infix is the standard application, like >>= and <$> -- but for <$!> I don't see this (yet). David