That isn't the only point. Applicative is also more general than Monad, in that more things are Applicatives than they are Monads, so this would enable to use a limited form of do-notation in more code. Also, Applicative interfaces are more amenable to some static optimizations, since the effects of an entire applicative expression can be known statically.
- Jake On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:12 AM, <p.k.f.holzensp...@utwente.nl> wrote: > I thought the whole point of Applicative (at least, reading Connor’s > paper) was to restore some function-application-style to the whole > effects-thing, i.e. it was the very point **not** to resort to binds or > do-notation.**** > > ** ** > > That being said, I’m all for something that will promote the use of the > name “pure” over “return”.**** > > ** ** > > +1 for the Opt-In**** > > ** ** > > Ph.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto: > glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Iavor Diatchki > > **** > > ** ** > > do x1 <- e1**** > > ** ** > > -- The following part is `Applicative`**** > > (x2,x3) <- do x2 <- e2 x1**** > > x3 <- e3**** > > pure (x2,x3)**** > > ** ** > > f x1 x2 x3**** > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
