Did you mean pure/return as the monadic equivalent?  I've frequently encountered embeddings where it's possible to have a valid <*> and >>= but not pure (or fmap).

On Jun 17, 2014 1:46 PM, "Carter Schonwald" <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ok, so one example of this design, albeit implemented in a funky way (compiler passes written in coq), was 
> Adam Megacz's Garrows project http://www.megacz.com/berkeley/garrows/
>
> a more concrete example of a haskell lib that enjoys a deep embedding and doesn't let you inject arbitrary (f:: a-> b )
> would be Accelerate hackage.haskell.org/package/accelerate (the expression language there could be made into an "arr free Arrow" but not an Arrow that  has arr)
>
> basically not having arr or the monadic equiv bind, gives you a way to write libs where you can get a program as a first order AST  when you "run it" and be able to analyze/compile it in user land at runtime
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek@p.lodz.pl> wrote:
>>
>> > assuming that any haskell function can be embedded in an
>> > arrow instance (...) prevents a lot of interesting deep embedding uses of the Arrow
>> > abstraction
>> Could you point me to some specific examples? I'm new to arrows and definitely far from groking
>> all the arcana of their usage.
>>
>> Janek
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>