Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Gregory Collins wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Gershom B wrote: > >> My understanding of the argument here, which seems to make sense to me, >> is that the AMP already introduced a significant breaking

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Erik Hesselink wrote: > On 5 October 2015 at 20:58, Sven Panne wrote: > > 2015-10-05 17:09 GMT+02:00 Gershom B : > >> > >> [...] As for libraries, it has been pointed out, I believe, that without > >>

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

2015-10-05 17:09 GMT+02:00 Gershom B : > On October 5, 2015 at 10:59:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan (b...@serpentine.com) > wrote: > [...] As for libraries, it has been pointed out, I believe, that without > CPP one can write instances compatible with AMP, and also with AMP + MRP. >

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

Sven Panne writes: > If you take e.g. (<$>) which is now part of the Prelude, you can't > simply import some compatibility module, because GHC might tell you > (rightfully) that that import is redundant, because (<$>) is already > visible through the Prelude. Yes, the

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On other social media forums, I am seeing educators who use Haskell as a vehicle for their main work, but would not consider themselves Haskell researchers, and certainly do not have the time to follow Haskell mailing lists, who are beginning to say that these kinds of annoying breakages to the

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

Hi, As a person who used Haskell in all three capacities (for scientific research, for commercial purpose, and to introduce others to benefits of pure and strongly typed programming), I must voice an supportive voice for this change: 1. Orthogonal type classes are easier to explain. 2. Gradual

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

I have used Haskell for teaching for years. Until recently, I taught the hierarchy using a semigroup model. Functor <- Apply <- Applicative Apply <- Bind <- Monad https://github.com/NICTA/course/tree/ee8d1a294137c157c13740ac99a23a5dd5870b4a/src/Course I did this because it means curious

Re: Language Change Management (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Foltzer wrote: >> Also I'm not sure if there would be less complaints if >> AMP/FTP/MFP/MRP/etc as part of a new Haskell Report would be switched on all >> at once in e.g. `base-5.0`, breaking almost *every* single package out there >> at

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

Hello all. I write this to be a little provocative, but … It’s really interesting to have this discussion, which pulls in all sorts of well-made points about orthogonality, teaching, the evolution of the language and so on, but it simply goes to show that the process of evolving Haskell is

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/10/15 11:59, Simon Thompson wrote: > There’s an old fashioned maxim that sums this up in a pithy way: > “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But... it *is* broken. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/10/15 15:16, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> But... it *is* broken. > Somehow, we managed to use Monad before this. That does not sound > "broken". Just because something is broken does

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 05/10/15 11:59, Simon Thompson wrote: > > There’s an old fashioned maxim that sums this up in a pithy way: > > “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. > But... it *is* broken. > Somehow, we managed to use Monad

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

I would like to suggest that the bar for breaking all existing libraries, books, papers, and lecture notes should be very high; and that the benefit associated with such a breaking change should be correspondingly huge. This proposal falls far short of both bars, to the extent that I am

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On October 5, 2015 at 10:59:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan (b...@serpentine.com) wrote: > I would like to suggest that the bar for breaking all existing libraries, > books, papers, > and lecture notes should be very high; and that the benefit associated with > such a breaking > change should be

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

2015-10-05 11:59 GMT+02:00 Simon Thompson : > [...] It’s really interesting to have this discussion, which pulls in all > sorts of well-made points about orthogonality, teaching, the evolution of > the language and so on, but it simply goes to show that the process of >

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

"Broken" here is hyperbole for "can be significantly improved for very little penalty." On 05/10/15 23:16, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen > wrote: > > On 05/10/15 11:59, Simon Thompson

Language Change Management (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

On 2015-10-05 at 15:27:53 +0200, Sven Panne wrote: > 2015-10-05 11:59 GMT+02:00 Simon Thompson : > >> [...] It’s really interesting to have this discussion, which pulls in all >> sorts of well-made points about orthogonality, teaching, the evolution of >> the language and

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On October 5, 2015 at 6:00:00 AM, Simon Thompson (s.j.thomp...@kent.ac.uk) wrote: > Hello all. I write this to be a little provocative, but … > > It’s really interesting to have this discussion, which pulls in all sorts of > well-made > points about orthogonality, teaching, the evolution of

Self-nomination

I would like to nominate myself to the Haskell Prime committee. About me: * I wrote the first publicly available Haskell compiler, hbc, which was available August 1990. * Subsequently I've written three more Haskell(-ish) compilers. * I've been on the Haskell Committee before. * I like