Hi,
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
Mr. McBride and mr. Paterson define in their Applicative paper:
data Except e a = OK a | Failed e
instance Monoid e => Applicative (Except e) where ...
Sometimes I'd still like to use >>= on Excepts but this "feels" wrong
somehow, because it doesn't use mo
Yes, however, ap is not equal to (<*>) for the given Applicative. I
don't believe such a monad is possible.
Neil Brown wrote:
> Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Mr. McBride and mr. Paterson define in their Applicative paper:
>>
>>> data Except e a = OK a | Failed e
>>> instance Monoi
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
Hello,
Mr. McBride and mr. Paterson define in their Applicative paper:
data Except e a = OK a | Failed e
instance Monoid e => Applicative (Except e) where ...
Sometimes I'd still like to use >>= on Excepts but this "feels" wrong
somehow, because it doesn't use
Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mr. McBride and mr. Paterson define in their Applicative paper:
>
>> data Except e a = OK a | Failed e
>> instance Monoid e => Applicative (Except e) where ...
>
> Sometimes I'd still like to use >>= on Excepts but this "feels" wrong
> somehow, because it
Hello,
Mr. McBride and mr. Paterson define in their Applicative paper:
data Except e a = OK a | Failed e
instance Monoid e => Applicative (Except e) where ...
Sometimes I'd still like to use >>= on Excepts but this "feels" wrong
somehow, because it doesn't use monoids nicely like the Applica
