On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:09 PM, James Cook
So a case could be made that, just as "forever (Just 1)" being nonsensical doesn't invalidate "instance Monad Maybe", "some (Just 1)" being nonsensical doesn't invalidate "instance Alternative Maybe". And on the other hand, a case could be made that the importance of "some" and "many" justifies the creation of a subclass of Alternative where they actually are mandated to be meaningful rather than just definable.
Being in the same typeclass means that you can defined instance Alternative Maybe where
I think we should take any further discussion off-list. Your messages from last night betray a deep misunderstanding that I'm not sure everyone else needs to sit through :-)
Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I enjoy reading discussions like this (and with a threaded mail reader, they're very easy to skip when I don't feel like reading them). What seems like misunderstanding is often actually another person's fundamental difference of perspective, and it can be valuable to anyone who has skimmed the thread this far to see what, if any, common ground can be found.
-- James
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Felipe.