[Haskell-cafe] Re: what is inverse of mzero and return?
ashley at semantic.org
Sun Jan 23 07:03:38 EST 2005
> I got the impression you
> could define anthing you liked for mzero and mplus - providing the laws
> are upheld?
I agree that a law-based approach is the correct one. The "Monad laws"
are well known, equivalent laws for Functor don't seem to be talked
about so much but I doubt there'd be any argument about them, given that
Functor is supposed to represent a well-defined concept in category
theory. These are found in :
fmap id = id
fmap (a . b) = (fmap a) . (fmap b)
I think it would be helpful if all these classes came with their laws
prominently attached in their Haddock documentation or wherever. The
trouble with MonadPlus is that the precise set of associated laws is
either unspecified or not the most useful (I assume there's a paper on
the class somewhere). I think everyone can agree on these:
mplus mzero a = a
mplus a mzero = a
mplus (mplus a b) c = mplus a (mplus b c)
mzero >>= a = mzero
But what about this?
a >> mzero = mzero
It's satisfied by  and Maybe, but not IO (for instance, when a is
'putStrLn "Hello"'), but IO has been declared an instance of MonadPlus.
And then there are the two I gave:
(mplus a b) >>= c = mplus (a >>= c) (b >>= c)
...which is satisfied by , but not Maybe or IO.
mplus (return a) b = return a
...which is satisfied by Maybe and IO, but not , although your
alternative declaration would make  satisfy this and not the previous
 Mark P. Jones, _Functional Programming with Overloading and
Higher-Order Polymorphism_, 1995
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
More information about the Haskell-Cafe