Jon Fairbairn wrote: > On 2006-08-25 at 19:09PDT Ashley Yakeley wrote: >> Jon Fairbairn wrote: >> >> > There has been discussion in the past about whether Monad >> > should be defined as >> > >> >> class Functor m => Monad m where ... >> >> It's more complicated now that we have Ross Patterson's "Applicative". >> >> http://haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/libraries/base/Control-Applicative.html > > FSVO "complicated"... it looks like a Good Thing to me, > although I don't like the names much.
Yes, I liked the original name 'Idiom' better. It bears some similarity to 'Monad' in that it has this mysterious quality that immediately made me curious... 8-) 'Applicative' might be somewhat more descriptive, and thus slightly better from a purely technical POV, however, it is quite an ugly name for such a beautiful concept. Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
