Hi Doaitse, Ross, Doaitse wrote:
The problem which arises now is when I want to use the class Applicative as it is now defined in Control.Applicative. Functions like <$>, <$, <* and many have standard implementations in terms of the basic function pure and <*>. Although this looks fine at first sight, this is not so fine if we want to give more specialised (optimised, checking) implementations, as I am doing in my library.
There used to be the same problem with the Arrow class, with operators like &&& and *** having standard definitions, but not being redefineable due to not being class methods, which prevented (or at least made much more difficult) certain optimizations. After some prodding from me, Ross moved them into the Arrow class, with default definitions. I was and still am quite happy with that, and I'm not aware of any major drawbacks, except that it might not be so clear exactly where to draw the line between methods and top-level standard definitions if one opt to include more than the bare minimum of methods. Best, /Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science The University of Nottingham nhn@cs.nott.ac.uk This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.