Yep. I was backstabbed by ghci seemingly having no issue with my definition when I asked for the type. On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Tom Ellis < tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2013@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:53:19PM +0100, Oliver Charles wrote:
You could do:
runKleisli . mconcat . map Kleisli :: Monoid (Kleisli m a b) => [a -> m b] -> a -> m b
Would that work for you? I can't find an instance for Monoid (Kleisli m a b) in `base`, so
On 04/16/2013 01:47 PM, Lyndon Maydwell wrote: presumably the author would also have to write this instance? If so - would that really be any different to using that fold?
It doesn't make sense anyway. It would have to be "Kleisli m a a" which would presumably require a newtype.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe