Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus

Henning Thielemann lemming at
Thu Jan 20 10:58:37 CET 2011

Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:

> If both (>>=) and join are class methods with default implementations
> that use the respective other method, you can still define the Cont
> monad instance in terms of (>>=), while you can use join where it is
> easier (e.g. in the [] instance). So instead of arguing whether join or
> (>>=) is easier, more natural or whatever, just let us make both a
> method of Monad.

Does anyone want to comment on my comparison with restricted monads, 
where '>>=' can be defined, but 'join' cannot?

More information about the Libraries mailing list