Re: [Haskell-beginners] pure instead of return?

yeah i know, so why did you say "so if you can you might want to use that"? 2017-07-01 21:46 GMT+02:00 Stefan Risberg :

Every monad is applicative, but every instance of applicative does not have a monad one

On 1 Jul. 2017 20:19, "Silent Leaf" wrote:

...

but i can use pure every time return is usable, can i not? every applicatives are monads right? i don't get the "if you can" part. why could i not?

2017-07-01 20:03 GMT+02:00 Francesco Ariis :

...

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:47:57PM +0200, Silent Leaf wrote:

...

[..] or is it a way to say "simplest way to wrap the value, purest (least "modified") equivalent of the value as wrapped value"?

^-- this one.

`pure` and `return` are synonyms. There are two words for the same concept for historical reasons. Using pure does not incurs in monad constraints, so if you can you might want to use that. _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners