Not to mention the ugly formatting ;) 2012/9/5 Richard O'Keefe <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz>: > > On 4/09/2012, at 10:39 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > >> "Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors" >> >> This Monoid instance for the endofunctors of the set of all elements >> of (m a) typematch in Haskell with FlexibleInstances: >> >> instance Monad m => Monoid (a -> m a) where >> mappend = (>=>) -- kleisly operator >> mempty = return >> >> The article can be found here: >> >> http://haskell-web.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/from-monads-to-monoids-in-small.html >> >> I would appreciate some comments. > > s/kleisly/Kleisli/ > In the article, > s/Lets/Let's/ > /Here 'm b' as/ s/as/is/ > s/this_are/this are/ > s/first, is/first is/ > s/haskell/Haskell/ > s/polimorphic/polymorphic/ > s/x=/x =/ > s/let's/Let's/ > s/condition, associativity/condition, associativity,/ > /if not where that way, .* guess/ > I *think* you mean to say something like > (If it were not so, it would be impossible to > define the denotational semantics of imperative > languages in terms of monads, I guess.) > Generally, it's "according TO", not "according WITH", > and "associated WITH", not "associated TO". > > instance Functor a > doesn't seem to be legal Haskell. > > At this point I stopped reading. > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe