On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Bob Ippolito <bob@redivi.com> wrote:

+1 from me, I would love to have named versions of these operators.

Does `ap` still have a Monad constraint or has it been changed to match the Applicative `<*>` after AMP?

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Done <chrisdone@gmail.com> wrote:

Is this defined anywhere in base, and if not could it be placed in
Control.Monad? I often find myself writing:

fmap (mu bar)
     (foo zot)

Then I decide to change the type of x, so instead I want to just
write:

bind (mu bar)
     (foo zot)

Which is just like fmap but the function can run in the
monad. Similar to traverse:

(Traversable t, Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)

As someone who isn’t a fan of operators, I generally am appreciative
of alternative regular plain English word versions of functions, which
I find easier to type, read and edit. Currently without defining such
a handy name, I have to transform the code to this:

mu bar =<<
foo zot

The name for this function is a no-brainer:

bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b
bind = (=<<)

For comparison, the not-very-pleasant <$> and <*> each have word
alternatives, fmap and ap. Even <> has mappend.

I don’t hold much hope for this, Haskellers love operators as much as
Perl programmers so few on this list will see the value in plain old
words, but at least I can link to this email in the archives for
future reference.

Ciao

​

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