Re: [Haskell-beginners] Type classes and synonyms

Stephen Tetley wrote:

2009/11/22 Isaac Dupree :

...

Sorry to take offense :-) maybe I was being too modest?

It seems Arrows are a necessary abstraction for a couple very particular world-views/paradigms, and don't fit very well with a lot of other stuff.

Hello All

I wouldn't go quite as far as saying Arrows are misfits, but in Isaac's defence, if all you have are pure functions, then arrows are just a wee bit, erm, boring.

:-) there are a few combinators in Arrow that would be nice to have for functions, without even that Arrow generalization, as people have noted now and then. I used to use them sometimes, but then I decided that it was a bit too confusing to the reader to involve a type-class (Arrow) that wasn't very relevant (and not ubiquitously well-known), even if a version with explicit lambdas is a bit longer.