[Haskell-cafe] Re: what is inverse of mzero and return?

[Keean Schupke]

Ashley Yakeley wrote:

>In article <Pine.WNT.4.61.0501211845490.1272 at philo>,
> "S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex at alexjacobson.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I assume there is a standard name for this 
>>class/function:
>>
>>   instance Foo [] where
>>     foo [] = mzero
>>     foo (x:_) = return x
>>
>>   instance Foo (Maybe x) where
>>     foo Nothing = mzero
>>     foo Just x = return x
>>    
>>
Surely they are incomplete monad definitions (has a return but no bind)...

>
>I don't believe so. I had to write my own classes to do this sort of 
>thing.
>
>This is also a good opporunity to point out an ambiguity in the standard 
>MonadPlus class. All instances satisfy these:
>
>  mplus mzero a = a
>  mplus a mzero = a
>
>But only some instances (such as []) satisfy this:
>
>  (mplus a b) >>= c = mplus (a >>= c) (b >>= c)
>
>Other instances (IO, Maybe) satisfy this:
>
>  mplus (return a) b = return a
>
>I think mplus should be separated into two functions. This code shows 
>the difference a bit more clearly:
>
>  do
>    b <- mplus (return True) (return False)
>    if b then mzero else return ()
>
>For the first kind this is the same as "return ()", for the second kind 
>it's the same as "mzero".
>  
>
But isnt the point of Monad plus, that to have a 'zero' implies failure 
(a normal
monad cannot fail) - and failure implies choice (a `mplus` b) is a if a 
succeeds or
b if a fails and b succeeds,or mzero if both fail. if you look at your 
first identity:

    mplus mzero a = a
    mplus a mzero = a

This fits the above description, but I don't see how the following can 
be true:

    (mplus a b) >>= c = mplus (a >>= c) (b >>= c)

The LHS says (if a fails run b)  then run c.
The RHS says if (a then c) fails  run (b then c)

Finally,

mplus (return a) b = return a

Is obvious because "return a" is not  "mzero", so it is true for all 
Monads that can fail. 

Or have I missed the point?

    Keean.