Re: Burning bridges

...

...

...

...

Casey McCann writes:

Beyond that, the argument that having redundant, less-polymorphic versions of standard combinators is helping beginners has not become any less ridiculous since the first time I heard it.

As I sit here in agreement with Edward, and comments like Casey's above, I begin to wonder: does the assumed minority who opposes such changes even exist anymore? Is there a chance we've fallen into the trap of assuming that they exist, and so shying away from formally proposing changes like this one? For example, in personal discussions, on IRC, and on the mailing lists, I see a resounding consensus that Applicative should become a superclass of Monad -- and that we can fix the breakages that will result. I also see consensus towards a less monomorphic Prelude (which dovetails nicely with the aforementioned Applicative change, as Edward explained). Why should the few (if they are even still out there!) who do not want such changes be allowed to rule the day? Why do I hear so many voices raised up in agreement, and then silenced by comparatively little opposition? If "avoiding success at all costs" is jokingly our by-word, are not backwards incompatible changes in the name of seeking perfection one of the best ways to forestall success? :) -- John Wiegley FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting http://fpcomplete.com johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net