Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

I think they're both wretched. return makes beginners think it's a control structure; pure just seems meaningless (I guess that's a slight improvement, arguably). I'd have gone for something like inject myself, but there's no way that's happening. On Sep 25, 2015 8:00 PM, "Christopher Allen" wrote:

Agreed.

The name pure is pretty awful. It's not _that_ big of a deal, but pure is annoyingly senseless and my coauthor noticed this of her own accord as well.

+1 for the proposal, just wish it wasn't named pure ;)

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:47 PM, wren romano wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

Reasoning: I happen to rather like "return" for purely pedagogical purposes since it lets you pretend (as a sufficient-for-beginners approximation) that code in the do-notation in IO is imperative code and "return" is the usual name for what it does in that context. I think that has a certain value, but "Legacy" is quite off-putting.

+1.

I like the proposal to merge pure/return into a single thing, but I rather prefer the name "return" for all the same pedagogical reasons it was originally chosen.

-- Live well, ~wren _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

-- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries