Re: Proposal: add liftA4 and liftA5 to match liftM4 and liftM5

could you elaborate more on why it would be "silly"? wouldn't defining things using <*> and pure be the way to make things simpler? Could you explain more please? On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:44 PM, David Feuer wrote:

Sure you could, but that would be kind of silly. liftMN should either be defined as liftAN or should be defined using the Monad ops as they have in the past. I was trying to make Base a little smaller by using the first approach, but it's not a big deal to repeat everything with specializations and unfoldings.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Carter Schonwald < carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

...

umm.... you can use <*> to define the liftAN operations right? Couldn't you just directly use <*> and pure to define the liftMN ones?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM, David Feuer wrote:

...

Well, I'm looking to define liftM = liftA, liftM2 = liftA2, liftM3 = liftA3, and (with a modified definition of ap) I'm getting that to work, but that leaves liftM4 and liftM5 hanging.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:30 PM, John Lato wrote:

...

Does anyone actually want these? I would have thought we should go the other way and deprecate `liftM3+` in favor of using `<*>`.

On Thu Nov 06 2014 at 10:26:36 AM David Feuer wrote:

...

Since Applicative is supposed to be important now, I figure we should get these in. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries