On 23 Jan 2009, at 21:50, Henning Thielemann wrote:
I always considered the monad functions with names ending on '_' a
concession to the IO monad. Would you need them for any other monad
than IO? For self-written monads you would certainly use a monoid
instead of monadic action, all returning (), but IO is a monad. (You
could however wrap (newtype Output = Output (IO ())) and define a
Monoid instance on Output.)
However our recent Monoid discussion made me think about mapM_,
sequence_, and friends. I think they could be useful for many monads
if they would have the type:
mapM_ :: (Monoid b) => (a -> m b) -> [a] -> m b
I expect that the Monoid instance of () would yield the same
efficiency as todays mapM_ and it is also safer since it connects
the monadic result types of the atomic and the sequenced actions.
There was a recent discussion on the topic:
http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2008/12/mapm-mapm-and-monadic-statements.html
Of note btw, these don't need Monad at all...
sequence :: Applicative f => [f a] -> f [a]
sequence = foldr (liftA2 (:)) (pure [])
mapA :: (Traversable t, Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
mapA = (fmap . fmap) sequence fmap
Bob
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
