# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Functor-Applicative-Monad Proposal"

From HaskellWiki

(→Pure vs. return) |
(→Pure vs. return) |
||

Line 9: | Line 9: | ||

== 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. [[User:Jesin|Jesin]] 20:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 20:44, 1 January 2011

### Fail

`fail`

is useful for the error monad, `Either String a`

.

### Pointed

If `return`

is the only method of the `Pointed`

class then `Pointed`

should be included in the hierarchy. Better to be exactly mathematically correct once and for all.

## Pure vs. return

When combining `pure`

and `return`

, perhaps we should call it `pure`

, or something else that is not `return`

? 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 `return`

is nothing like "return" in other languages. Jesin 20:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)