Proposal: Applicative => Monad: Call for consensus

[Henning Thielemann]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Dan Doel wrote:

> I can believe it isn't efficient. But it's possible. An implementation more
> like vector (for instance) would obviously work out better, because:
>
>  unit = UnitVector
>  pair (l, r) = PairVector l r

Yes, this one is much easier. It means that actual zipping is defered to 
the final fmap. This gives me the idea to use such pairs of vectors as 
temporary types, and not stream-fusion:Stream.

> instead of building a new vector and copying all the elements. Anyhow, my
> mails were more concerned with whether or not these things are 'unprincipled
> hacks,' not whether they're practically useful.

I wonder whether practically useful definitions would require unprincipled 
hacks. :-)