I have to admit that I am a bit torn about using `pure`. On the one hand, if you actually have a pure value, it feels pretty intuitive to me. But what about
pure (putStrLn "Hi") `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value... Or is there another way to interpret the word pure in this context? As for Applicative, I can add (and have added) the Applicative constraint in the Monad definition for my project, so I will also have to write an Applicative instance for my monads. - Jurriën On 6 Aug 2013, at 09:50, Erik Hesselink <hessel...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about `pure`? It's already used in applicative, and has the > motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I > don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two > names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic > version). > > Erik > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:14 AM, J. Stutterheim <j.stutterh...@me.com> wrote: >> Dear Cafe, >> >> >> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` >> function in Monad, what would be a "better" name for it? (for some >> definition of better) >> >> N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do >> currently have the opportunity to pick names for common functions in a >> non-Haskell related project, so I was wondering if there perhaps is a better >> name for `return`. >> >> >> - Jurriën >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
