Ronald Guida: > I'm pondering, is it possible to define a Set monad analogous to the > List monad?
[snip] > This leads me think of a different solution: What if I could define a > Set monad that's smart enough to "know", for any type a, whether or > not (Eq a) holds, and degenerate to a blind list if the elements can't > be equated. Ultimately, what I would need is a way to overload "join" > (or "bind") with two different implementations, one for types that > satisfy (Eq a), and another implementation for all other types. You might find this interesting, in case you haven't yet seen it: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe/18118 If you also read the rest of that thread, you'll see that with a recent GHC HEAD, you should be able to avoid the need for the Teq witness. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
