[Haskell-beginners] Type classes and synonyms
felipe.lessa at gmail.com
Sat Nov 21 18:07:35 EST 2009
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 05:43:29PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> why has no one mentioned: you most likely don't need to understand
> Arrows? I'm pretty good with Haskell, and Arrows are still somewhat
> confusing to me. Why? Most problems I've worked with in Haskell
> have had more-idiomatic solutions than Arrows. (examples include:
> Monad; Functor; Applicative; just plain functions; plain old lack of
> type-class abstraction.) It's not so easy or useful to understand
> any abstraction/class without using at least two or three useful
> examples/instances of it first.
In defence of my solution, I haven't really used the power of the
arrows. The "problem" is that the quite useful functions first,
second, (***) and (&&&) are defined within Control.Arrow.
More information about the Beginners