2009/11/13 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org>: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Coppin > <andrewcop...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> This is the thing. If we had a class specifically for containers, that could >> be useful. If we had a class specifically for algebras, that could be >> useful. But a class that represents "any possible thing that can technically >> be considered a monoid" seems so absurdly general as to be almost useless. >> If you don't know what an operator *does*, being able to abstract over it >> isn't especially helpful... >> >> ...in my humble opinion. (Which, obviously, nobody else will agree with.) > > But can't you say exactly the same about Monads? There's a comment about monads for programming that goes along the lines of 'Monads are a just a structure (ADT?), but they happen to be a very good one." Does anyone know the original version (not my paraphrase) and who the originator was? Thanks Stephen _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
