On 08/06/2013 04:30 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
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?
Probably because of the monad laws, where `return` is a "unit" (in the
mathematical sense) for the `bind` operation. - chris
- 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
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
