PROPOSAL: classes for traversals
ross at soi.city.ac.uk
Mon Nov 21 05:09:26 EST 2005
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:51:44PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> -- If @f@ is also a 'Functor', define @('<$>') = 'fmap'@.
> -- If it is also a 'Monad', define @'pure' = 'return'@ and @('<*>') = 'ap'@.
> why you don't just define:
> instance Monad m => Applicative m where
> pure = return
> (<*>) = ap
Because that instance would overlap with all others. As it is, these
classes are Haskell 98. Better language support for superclasses would
be useful here, but is unavailable right now.
> RP> They are proposed for the base package, and would replace FunctorM.
> it is a beatiful contribution. but it doesn't work without definitions
> for All, Any and so on :)
I'm not sure I understand this one. These types are defined in
Data.Monoid in CVS, and coming soon to a Haskell implementation near you.
More information about the Libraries