On 2/22/06, Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josef Svenningsson wrote: > > > This is one of the things that the Clean people got right. In Clean, my > > examples from above would look like: > > > > > class MonadPlus m | Monad m where ... > > > > > > class Ix a | Ord a where .. > > > > > > instance Eq (Ratio a) | Integral a where ... > > Not quite the same complaint, but I've always been bothered by the > inconsistent use of "=>". I would prefer "A => B" to mean "if A, then > B". Accordingly: > > class Monad m <= MonadPlus m
By your definition, couldn't what we have now (class Monad m => MonadPlus m) be read as "If m is in the Monad class, then the class MonadPlus can be defined for m thusly:...", which seems pretty clear to me. /S -- Sebastian Sylvan +46(0)736-818655 UIN: 44640862 _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime