"Ariel J. Birnbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not actually bothered about every possible monad being > > representable as such in Haskell. I'd just like Set to work. ;-) > > What would "work" mean in this case? I see two different meanings: > > 1. Use monadic operations (mapM, guard) on Sets. > 2. Make the nice monadic syntax work for sets. 3. implement >>=, guardS and mapS for
data MyHack Set = MyHack Set and abuse the do-notation for your own wicked purposes. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
