On 18 July 2010 23:35, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <[email protected]> wrote: > * Someone's asked me why I don't define a Traversable-like class. The > reason is is that I haven't gotten around to it yet ;-) (as well as a > great many other things).
Ugh, I got Traversable mixed up with Foldable (I didn't get enough sleep on the weekend and I should hit the sack now). I've integrated fold right into the definition of Container, and everything else comes straight from that so I didn't see the point of making an explicit sub-class (or a super-class, take your pick) just for that. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic [email protected] IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
