Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus
fischer at nii.ac.jp
Thu Jan 20 14:09:14 CET 2011
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> 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?
I am in favor of being able to choose between join and >>= when defining
Monad instances and don't consider consistency with RMonad very important.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries