On 29.05.2011 22:59, David Mazieres wrote:
> But now you have overlapping type synonyms, which pose a safety threat
> where the more-specific instance is not in scope. Therefore, Haskell
> likely cannot be extended to accept code such as the above.
>
No it could. Inconsistency arise from fact th
On 04.01.2011 16:38, Tony Morris wrote:
I think you'll find a problem using do-notation with your Monad.
Tony Morris
Do you mean that fail is absent? That's irrelevant here.
I tried to demonstrate that fmap could be defined in terms of monad and
that definition will work.
_
On 04.01.2011 13:24, o...@okmij.org wrote:
I'd like to argue in opposition of making Functor a super-class of
Monad. I would argue that superclass constraints are not the right
tool for expressing mathematical relationship such that all monads are
functors and applicatives.
Then argument is pra
