On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 14:09, Bryan O'Sullivan <b...@serpentine.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Carl Howells <chowell...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> Well, as I read it, the whole point of this thread was "They don't >> make sense for many instances of Alternative. They should be moved to >> a different class." It sounded like you were arguing that any >> instance of Alternative where they don't make sense shouldn't be an >> instance of Alternative, instead. > > > Correct. And your example of "some (Just 1)" inflooping was not a > counterargument, but rather an illustration that perhaps some people (and > I'm not trying to imply you here, don't worry) don't understand what some > and many are supposed to do. > Or put otherwise, they're an indication that Applicative is more general than many. The point remains, many and some apply to something that has more constraints than Applicative. -- brandon s allbery allber...@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
