On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:58 +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote: > On 7/14/07, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin wrote: > > > That is my recollection also. (Don't ask me *which* monads, mind > you...) > In the case in point, the law breakage never the less matches > "intuition"; personally, I ignore the monad laws on the basis that if > you're doing something "sane", the laws will automatically hold > anyway. > (But maybe I'm just a renegade?) > > Yeah, the laws confused me for a while as well. Hint to guys writing > Haskell documentation, we're not all doing CS phD you know ;-) We > just want to get things done ;-)
-Documentation- damn well better have the monad laws. Something is not a monad if it does not satisfy the monad laws. Furthermore, the monad laws are almost the only thing that -does- define monads. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
