All Monads are Functors
benjamin.franksen at bessy.de
Sat Aug 26 19:28:58 EDT 2006
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2006-08-25 at 19:09PDT Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>> > There has been discussion in the past about whether Monad
>> > should be defined as
>> >> class Functor m => Monad m where ...
>> It's more complicated now that we have Ross Patterson's "Applicative".
> FSVO "complicated"... it looks like a Good Thing to me,
> although I don't like the names much.
Yes, I liked the original name 'Idiom' better. It bears some similarity
to 'Monad' in that it has this mysterious quality that immediately made me
curious... 8-) 'Applicative' might be somewhat more descriptive, and thus
slightly better from a purely technical POV, however, it is quite an ugly
name for such a beautiful concept.
More information about the Haskell-prime