On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, wren ng thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Doing it that way removes the polymorphism that MonadState, MonadReader, etc > offer to clients. For example, the backwards-state monad[1] is a MonadState > but not a StateT (without extra plumbing). There are other examples which > don't even change the semantics. It seems a shame to force these > implementations to give different names for "the same" functions. Are MPTCs > onerous? They'll be in haskell-prime afterall. Of course, the fundeps are > another matter entirely... >
Slightly off topic - if you do make your backwards-state monad an instance on MonadState be careful not to use Control.Monad.State.Class.modify - executing this falls into a black hole for the backwards-state monad. -Antoine _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
