Cont as Monoid

[Benjamin Franksen]

Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> Conor McBride wrote:
>> My usual rule of thumb is that inherent natural monoidal structure 
>> should have
>> a higher priority than just applicative lifting of monoidal structure 
>> from the value type.
> 
> Monoid is a bit ridiculous as a class, as there are frequently several 
> useful monoids on a type, leading to a collection of ugly wrapper
newtypes.
> 
> Monoid ought to be a type, in my view. And each of those wrapper classes 
> can be replaced by a value in that type.

Would you care to elaborate this idea? Do you mean a record with two
functions?

Cheers
Ben