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.
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 <wren@community.haskell.org> wrote:On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Bardur Arantsson <spam@scientician.net> 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 AllenCurrently working on http://haskellbook.com
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries