On 3/1/06, Johannes Waldmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But my point was that I want to use > "do notation" for Sets (in fact, for any kind of collection) > so I'd need the original Functor and Monad.
I understand this for Monad. Why not just redefine Functor, Oleg-style? > I couldn't use ghc's Rebindable Syntax feature > because the types for (>>=) would not match? > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.4/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#rebindable-syntax Good news, everyone! http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/current/docs/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#rebindable-syntax That looks good to me! Jim _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
