Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Is there any consensus?

[Sittampalam, Ganesh]

John Smith wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 09:50, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>> John Smith wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2011 16:42, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>> 
>>>>    (1) renaming fmap ->   map
>>>>    (2) adding join to Monad
>>>>    (3) removing (>>) from Monad
>>>>    (4) moving fail to MonadFail (this is a language change)
>>>>    (5) adding Applicative as a superclass of Monad
>>>>    .. and maybe anything else I missed
>>>> 
>>> This proposal (as in the patches attached to the ticket) is only
>>> (5). The wiki page is much broader than this.
>> 
>> The ticket is rather confusing, in that it says "The proposal is
>> detailed in  the wiki". I see the followup comment that the attached
>> patches "only implement the new Applicative =>  Monad hierarchy, but
>> do not change any names (as proposed on the wiki page)", but that
>> doesn't indicate the status of the other things one way or the other.
>> 
>> Also, the relevant attached patch seems to at least add join to
>> Monad:
>>
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/attachment/ticket/4834/base_new_mo
>> na d_hierarchy.dpatch 
>> 
> 
> Ticket descriptions are immutable, so I couldn't update it when the
> patch and wiki diverged. There is a section in the Wiki page
> dedicated to describing the proposed patch.  

OK, I see. Might be worth adding a note to that effect to the top of the
wiki page.

BTW I said when you first proposed this that I'm opposed until we have
language support that makes it easier to add new superclasses
non-disruptively, and that remains the case.

Ganesh

=============================================================================== 
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: 
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html 
===============================================================================