Doesn't for already exist, in Data.Traversable? Except that for = flip traverse.
http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=for Cheers, -Matthew On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Johannes Waldmann <waldm...@imn.htwk-leipzig.de> wrote: > Good: we have mapM, and we have forM ( = flip mapM ) . > > Sure this is just a convenience, and indeed > "forM xs $ \ x -> do ..." is quite handy, > especially if "xs" is really small, > and "..." is some larger expression. > > Bad: we have map, but we are missing: for ( = flip map ) . > > The function is very convenient, for the same reasons as above. > I can't remember how often I typed "for = flip map" in a source file. > I never put this definition in a module either, > since the import statement would be longer than the definition. > > So, I'm all for "for" . > > In Data.List? In the Prelude? (Should put it right next to "map".) > > - J.W. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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