<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Jeff Shaw <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shawjef3@msu.edu">shawjef3@msu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
If we want to argue about maybeTo and the Fairbairn threshold, probably we should argue about whether to include maybeToList, which is less general than maybeTo.</blockquote><div> </div></div>This is a much harder sell, because it has to overcome the fact that such a change for the sake of intellectual purity would break existing code needlessly.<div>
<br></div><div>The fact that this becomes a consideration is further argument against carelessly expanding the library.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not saying that the combinators under discussion are a careless expansion, merely that their addition needs to be weighed against those other concerns.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm still a lukewarm +1 for adding maybeTo/maybeA if better names can be derived. Annoyingly it doesn't fit any of the m prefix or M suffix guidelines in Control.Monad, so the obvious maybeM or mmaybe would be misapplied.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Edward<br><br></div>