On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:58 +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/14/07, Andrew Coppin
That is my recollection also. (Don't ask me *which* monads, mind you...) In the case in point, the law breakage never the less matches "intuition"; personally, I ignore the monad laws on the basis that if you're doing something "sane", the laws will automatically hold anyway. (But maybe I'm just a renegade?)
Yeah, the laws confused me for a while as well. Hint to guys writing Haskell documentation, we're not all doing CS phD you know ;-) We just want to get things done ;-)
-Documentation- damn well better have the monad laws. Something is not a monad if it does not satisfy the monad laws. Furthermore, the monad laws are almost the only thing that -does- define monads.