What about `pure`? It's already used in applicative, and has the motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic version).
Erik On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:14 AM, J. Stutterheim <j.stutterh...@me.com> 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
