> Magicloud Magiclouds <magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That is OK. Since understand the basic concept of monoid (I mean the >> thing in actual math), the idea here is totally not hard for me. But >> the sample here does not show why (or how) we use it in programming, >> right?
Hi Magicloud Conal Elliott has an interesting paper about designing your programs in relation to the standard type classes:. http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/ Thinking about the data structures and functions in your program with regards the standard classes is very useful useful for clarifying your design. And certainly if you decide your data structure fits the Monoid interface then you will be presenting it to others who use your program in the 'standard vocabulary'. But even for Monoid which seemingly presents a simple interface (mempty, mappend) deciding whether the _container_ you have is naturally a monoid can be difficult. A personal example, I've been developing a drawing library for a couple of months and still can't decide whether a bounding box should be a monoid (mempty, append) or a groupoid (just append) where append in both cases is union. Even though I haven't resolved this problem, having the framework of monoid versus groupoid at least gives me the _terminology_ to consider the problem. Best wishes Stephen _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
