On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> [...] Apart from some
> basic combinators in Control.Monad or the definitions of monad
> transformers, how much of what you write in do-blocks is applicable to
> some generic Monad instance as opposed to a specific Monad?
Well, if my *only* constraint on a type is that it be an instance of Monad,
then *all* of the code written in do-blocks will be applicable to a generic
Monad instance. That's the whole point. :-)
Furthermore, you make it sound like this generic case scenario is incredibly
rare, but in fact it is very common: it occurs whenever someone writes a
monadic transformer, which happens all the time. Imagine what writing monadic
transformers would be like if you couldn't always trust that, say, (>>=) was a
well-defined operation?
Cheers,
Greg
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
