
Map is (you map over the values, not the keys).
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:14 AM Tony Morris
wrote: Map and Set are not.
On 01/06/2016 8:57 AM, "Jeffrey Brown"
wrote: In Haskell typeclasses are based on what you want to do with something.
If, for instance, you want to be able to map over a container, you can make it an instance of class Functor -- which all the standard containers (List, Map, Set, Tree, Maybe ...) already are.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Silent Leaf
wrote: In fact it all comes down to trying to add partially a feature absent
from the Haskell language, which is the ability to distinguish values both on name *and* on type --thus allowing two variables of the same name if
Honestly i don't see the drawback of that name system, but i guess
map and set are not what? I didn't get it.
That's cool, I'll look into it!
As for why Haskell doesn't allow natural overloading of any function name
merely by choosing another name, does anyone know?
Le mercredi 1 juin 2016, Alex Rozenshteyn
Le mercredi 1 juin 2016, Silent Leaf
a écrit : All in the title. I haven't used them much, but I saw Map or Vector
types were forcing the user to use qualified functions unless you want nameclash with the more basic, typically list-oriented functions.
So, why not have a massive, general purpose interface so the type only can separate between containers --which would allow for cross-container polymorphism, i suppose, more easily, even though it's not necessarily the most widespread need. So, do i miss something? Is there in fact a class of that kind? If so why not? Thanks in advance! :)
Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-- Jeffrey Benjamin Brown _______________________________________________ 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