On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Hmm, than we have a different interpretation of the standard as far as (==) is concerned. Well, concerning Monad you're probably right because the Report only says "should" satisfy instead of "shall" satisfy or whatever. As far as I could see the Report says nothing about the meaning of (+).
Well, the next version of Haskell with Design by Contract will of course formally specify all those laws, so I won't be forced any more to pay attention to the difference between "shall" and "should". The sense of the latter being surely questionable, since a law that doesn't always hold, is not a law, but a hidden bug. It may seem a bit late that FP now gets, what has been into imperative practice in 1985. (Bibliography on http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~robertw/eiffel ) Robert