Thanks Chris. Yes, I like lift as well, because I find it a rather intuitive name. Unfortunately, as you say, it is already a commonly used name as well, which might make it slightly confusing.
When I hear `unit` I immediately think about generic programming, not so much about monads. Can you perhaps explain the intuition behind `unit` as an alternative to `return` in the context of monads? - Jurriën On 6 Aug 2013, at 07:32, Christian Sternagel <c.sterna...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Jurriën. > > personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell), > since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes > uses "unit".) > > cheers > > chris > > On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
