Re: seq as a class method

Am Freitag, 24. März 2006 14:40 schrieb John Hughes:

[...]

Thirdly, the laws one loses are "nearly true" anyway, and that's very often enough. See "Fast and loose reasoning is morally correct", POPL 2006. We don't need to give up anything to make reasoning *as though* such laws held sound, in most cases.

I will probably have a look at this paper. Nevertheless, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that something that isn't a monad claims to be a monad, etc. Maybe we should rename seq to unsafeSeq or something similar.

John

Best wishes, Wolfgang