I think this is the interpretation I think we're probably best left with.

I agree that names matter and that anachronistic labels confuse, but I think it is the lesser of evils to widen the definition of the 'M' suffix than it is to double up on almost all the names taken in the environment and force the entire community to go through a positively gigantic deprecation cycle.

-Edward

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Andreas Abel <andreas.abel@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:

Or you can widen the interpretation of suffix ...M as "effectful", which could be a monadic or applicative effect.

On 29.12.2014 16:50, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com
<mailto:ekmett@gmail.com>> wrote:

Is it "madness" to want to avoid namespace proliferation and
maximize the usefulness of an existing combinator now that the
constraints that forged it have changed to allow it to be slightly
more permissive?

Madness is such strong language for this august list.

May I speak on behalf of haskell newcomers for a time?

Haskell places such an emphasis on uniformity and regularity. Functions
with names that end with M once meant they were monadic variants of
those that don't. That's no longer uniformly the case, because of the
FAM restructuring.

The names of functions matter.

Anachronistic labels confuse.

Leaving filterM with a type signature of Applicative cannot be the
long-term solution.

-- Kim-Ee

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

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

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

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