Proposal: Add a strict version of <$> for monads

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com> writes:

> There are '$' and '$!', so it's just pity that '<$>' and '<$!>' would break
> this naming consistency, because '<$!>' wouldn't be the strict version of
> '<$>'.

I agree with Daniel.

John