# Talk:Functor-Applicative-Monad Proposal

### From HaskellWiki

(Difference between revisions)

(→Pure vs. return) |
("fail" has been addressed in the main proposal page) |
||

(One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

− | |||

=== Pointed === | === Pointed === | ||

Line 9: | Line 5: | ||

== Pure vs. return == | == Pure vs. return == | ||

− | When combining <hask>pure</hask> and <hask>return</hask>, perhaps we should call it <hask>pure</hask>, or something else that is not <hask>return</hask>? It would defy convention, yes, but we would already be making changes that would require a Legacy module for backwards compatability, and it may reduce confusion over what the function actually does, because Haskell's <hask>return</hask> is nothing like "return" in other languages. | + | When combining <hask>pure</hask> and <hask>return</hask>, perhaps we should call it <hask>pure</hask>, or something else that is not <hask>return</hask>? It would defy convention, yes, but we would already be making changes that would require a Legacy module for backwards compatability, and it may reduce confusion over what the function actually does, because Haskell's <hask>return</hask> is nothing like "return" in other languages. |

## Latest revision as of 20:46, 1 January 2011

### [edit] 1 Pointed

Ifreturn

Pointed

Pointed

## [edit] 2 Pure vs. return

When combiningpure

return

pure

return

return