Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:23:53 AM, you wrote:
That's a tough call to make. Changing the kind of Sequence to * from *
- * means losing the Functor, Monad, and MonadPlus superclasses and
all the various maps and zips.
But there's no option if you want to be able to support
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:43:23 AM, you wrote:
As you've pointed out, there are 2 separate issues that are in danger of
being confused:
1) Forcing all sequence instances to support all operations
2) Bundling all the ops into a single huge class
Collections library (darcs get
Hello John,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 6:27:29 AM, you wrote:
It is best to think of haskell primitives as something completely new,
they reuse some naming conventions from OO programming, but that doesn't
mean they suffer from the same limitations. It took me a few trys to
wrap my brain
Hello Einar,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 1:58:30 PM, you wrote:
class ElementType c a | c - a
class Foldable c where
fold :: ElementType c a = (a - b - b) - b - c - b
i love it! will it be possible to write smth like this:
class Stream m h | h-m
data T h = (Stream m h) = C (m Int)
?
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:43:23 AM, you wrote:
As you've pointed out, there are 2 separate issues that are in
danger of being confused:
1) Forcing all sequence instances to support all operations
2) Bundling all the ops into a single huge class
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 14:37 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:23:53 AM, you wrote:
That's a tough call to make. Changing the kind of Sequence to * from *
- * means losing the Functor, Monad, and MonadPlus superclasses and
all the various maps and
