Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus
uzytkownik2 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 19:38:48 CET 2011
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 10:03 -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, <roconnor at theorem.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> In my completion monad, "join" is more efficent than "bind id"
> This suggests that your monad will work less efficiently if you use it
> with the do-notation.
> Join and bind are very similar and, at least in standard Haskell code,
> I think that "bind" has proven to be a lot more useful then "join".
> Also, as I mentioned before, if people find "join" easier to define
> then "bind", then they can define "join", and then define "bind" in
> terms of that---I am still not convinced that we need a new method
> added to the Monad class.
I think that's the least of the problems. The method may not even be
exported by Prelude just like (<$), which can be defined in terms of
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Libraries