Hello Ross, Monday, November 21, 2005, 1:09:26 PM, you wrote:
why you don't just define:
instance Monad m => Applicative m where pure = return (<*>) = ap
RP> Because that instance would overlap with all others. As it is, these RP> classes are Haskell 98. Better language support for superclasses would RP> be useful here, but is unavailable right now. with instances for [], IO and so on? but you can just omit them, they just repeats this definition. or you think that some Monads will require alternative definitions?
it is a beatiful contribution. but it doesn't work without definitions for All, Any and so on :)
RP> I'm not sure I understand this one. These types are defined in RP> Data.Monoid in CVS, and coming soon to a Haskell implementation near you. but not in ghc 6.4.1. btw, why you not wrote about this to main Haskell list? imho this is enough important contribution to make all know about this. and you are not answered about my TH suggestion -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com