The Other Prelude
Call for contribution
This fun project, called "The Other Prelude", and is a creative reconstruction of the standard Prelude. By disregarding history and compatibility, we get a clean sheet.
The principal is to make the names very readable for both beginners and category theorists (if any).
- The prelude should not contain any "projection" functions (like
snd. They go to the Extension module.
- Should alphanumeric names be preferred over symbols when defining a class?
TheOtherPrelude- Minimalistic module.
TheOtherPrelude.Extension- Convenient definitions.
Currently, the code is in Wiki form. If people do agree that the collaborative decisions begot something pretty, we'll have a group of files in darcs.haskell.org some time.
The imaginery Prelude as it stands,
import Prelude () -- hide everything -- the idea is to remove 'fmap' -- and map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] to be a special case class Functor f where map :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b -- should the Functor hierarchy proposal be adopted? -- -- NO -- class Monad m where (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b (>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b return :: a -> m a fail :: String -> m a -- -- YES -- -- the following has been shamelessly copied -- from the functor hierarchy proposal wiki page class Functor f => Applicative f where return :: a -> f a (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b -- or should this be named 'ap'? -- or something even better? -- could this nice looking function -- refactor the liftM* idioms? -- my undestanding is that this is the default for monad (>>) :: Applicative f => f a -> f b -> f b fa >> fb = (map (const id) fa) <*> fb -- this leaves little left for the actual Monad class class (Applicative f) => Monad f where (>>=) :: f a -> (a -> f b) -> f b fail :: String -> f a -- end of Functor hierarchy dilemma
How to use it, as it stands,
import Prelude () -- hide everything import TheOtherPrelude -- get everything import qualified TheOtherPrelude.Monad.Kleisli as M -- standard convention