At 2002-02-07 02:09, I wrote: >The kind of generalisation you are proposing is, in my opinion, best done >explicitly by Haskell. Primitive functions and types should be as simple, >concrete and primitive as possible. Let Haskell do the clever >generalisation stuff.
As a rule, I'm opposed to any generalisation in the standard libraries over IO and (ST s) that cannot be made to work for user-defined monads. People will use them in their code, and those monads will become "privileged". I admit I have a stake in this, my JVM-Bridge makes extensive use of lifted monads, and so I'd like porting code between monads to be as easy as possible. The way forward for this is classes and types in the standard libraries that generalise over any monad which has the necessary properties. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
