<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
My understanding was that bind historically referred to
`(=<<)`, not `(>>=)`<br>
<br>
Either way I am (+1) on this, even if my previous sentence is false.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/9/14, 1:55 PM, David Feuer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMgWh9uJcQS4D=cPjmZy3yDvSvSedjO-Rvp5_c44fa1mHUJH=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">On Dec 9, 2014 4:44 PM, "Christopher Done" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:chrisdone@gmail.com">chrisdone@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> The name for this function is a no-brainer:<br>
><br>
> bind :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b<br>
> bind = (=<<)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Since most people use the term "bind" to refer to the
>>= operator, this would be very confusing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> For comparison, the not-very-pleasant <$>
and <*> each have word<br>
> alternatives, fmap and ap. Even <> has mappend.</p>
<p dir="ltr">fmap predates <$>, and <$> tends to be
used only in certain contexts. "ap" has a narrower type than
<*>.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I don’t hold much hope for this, Haskellers love
operators as much as<br>
> Perl programmers so few on this list will see the value in
plain old<br>
> words, but at least I can link to this email in the
archives for<br>
> future reference.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I have nothing against the idea in principle, but
that name won't fly.</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Libraries@haskell.org">Libraries@haskell.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>