On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Conor McBride <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:conor@strictlypositive.org" target="_blank">conor@strictlypositive.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div><br>
On 30 Nov 2010, at 16:05, David Menendez wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I contend that there is little benefit to splitting Applicative. By<br>
itself, &#39;pure&#39; is simply too loosely defined.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It would be more interesting to have a type class for those<br>
functors which were not pointed. Relatively speaking.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m completely lost now.  Do you mean something other  than Functor?  What do you have in mind?</div><div><br></div><div>John</div>

</div>