On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, James Cook <mo...@deepbondi.net> wrote: > So a case could be made that, just as "forever (Just 1)" being nonsensical > doesn't invalidate "instance Monad Maybe", "some (Just 1)" being nonsensical > doesn't invalidate "instance Alternative Maybe". And on the other hand, a > case could be made that the importance of "some" and "many" justifies the > creation of a subclass of Alternative where they actually are mandated to be > meaningful rather than just definable.
Being in the same typeclass means that you can defined instance Alternative Maybe where > > I think we should take any further discussion off-list. Your messages from > last night betray a deep misunderstanding that I'm not sure everyone else > needs to sit through :-) > > > Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I enjoy reading discussions like > this (and with a threaded mail reader, they're very easy to skip when I > don't feel like reading them). What seems like misunderstanding is often > actually another person's fundamental difference of perspective, and it can > be valuable to anyone who has skimmed the thread this far to see what, if > any, common ground can be found. > > -- James > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe