On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Edward Kmett
We have a couple of weeks until the third release candidate for GHC 7.10 goes out the door.
Along the way with the last couple of release candidates folks have found some problems with the way we implemented the AMP. [1][2]
Most notably, we failed to include (<$>) in the Prelude, so the standard idiom of
foo <$> bar <*> baz <*> quux
doesn't work out of the box!
I'd like to include (<$>) in the Prelude in RC3.
I'd also like to invite discussion about whether folks believe we should include (<$) out of the box.
Strong +1 for (<$>). I often use (<$>) for non-applicative functors whenever it helps reduce clutter. As far as the comment about encouraging people to use pure, the whole point of (<$>) being an alias for fmap is that (f <$> x) can be a significant optimization over (pure f <*> x). Ambivalent about (<$) -- Live well, ~wren