On 18 July 2010 23:35, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > * Someone's asked me why I don't define a Traversable-like class. The > reason is is that I haven't gotten around to it yet ;-) (as well as a > great many other things).
Ugh, I got Traversable mixed up with Foldable (I didn't get enough sleep on the weekend and I should hit the sack now). I've integrated fold right into the definition of Container, and everything else comes straight from that so I didn't see the point of making an explicit sub-class (or a super-class, take your pick) just for that. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
