Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why the reluctance to introduce the Functor requirement on Monad?

On 24 July 2011 00:49, Sebastien Zany wrote:

Would it be theoretically possible/convenient to be able to put boilerplate like this in class definitions?

Not really: what happens for Functors that aren't Monads? Also, for some Monads there may be a more efficient definition of fmap than using liftM, so even an automatic reverse instance wouldn't always be wanted. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com