Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic < ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, I'm working on something like this at the moment, but I'm > currently stuck on naming: if I want to have Functor for kind * -> *, > what's a good name for a type class for kind *? > I was thinking ab

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

On 15 August 2010 08:50, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote: > Yeah, I'm working on something like this at the moment, but I'm > currently stuck on naming: if I want to have Functor for kind * -> *, > what's a good name for a type class for kind *? Conor McBride has suggested looking at arity families

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

Alexey Karakulov writes: >> > (Ord b) must be deduced from (Functor (Set b)) but it doesn't. I >> > don't know whether it's my mistake somewhere or ghc problem. >> >> I've come across this problem as well; the best solution I've seen so >> far is the one taken by Ganesh in his rmonad library: >>

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

On 14 August 2010 20:27, Stephen Tetley wrote: > If I was doing Wumpus again though, I'd probably do with Pointwise. Ahem, "do without Pointwise" Originally the types I operated on with Pointwise were more complicated than they are now and Pointwise seemed a benefit. But as I got a better unde

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

The non-type-changing map can be implemented as a type class - in my graphics lib Wumpus, I call it pointwise: class Pointwise sh where type Pt sh :: * pointwise :: (Pt sh -> Pt sh) -> sh -> sh I think other people have posted it to the cafe under a different name, before I did: http://www.

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic < ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alexey Karakulov writes: > > > > (Ord b) must be deduced from (Functor (Set b)) but it doesn't. I don't > know > > whether it's my mistake somewhere or ghc problem. > > I've come across this problem as we

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

Alexey Karakulov writes: > (Ord b) must be deduced from (Functor (Set b)) but it doesn't. I don't know > whether it's my mistake somewhere or ghc problem. I've come across this problem as well; the best solution I've seen so far is the one taken by Ganesh in his rmonad library: http://hackage.h

[Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor) (Again)

I was inspired by George Pollard's postat haskell-cafe and tried to implement the non-polymorphic Functor class ( I named it Functor' ). I changed some names and added reasonable constraints. type family NewPt f a class F

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor)

It does seem that having quantified contexts would make this *much* easier... ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor)

George Pollard schrieb: > Ok, so I have a small idea I'm trying to work on; call it a > Prelude-rewrite if you want. For this I want to be able to have the > hierarchy Functor → Applicative → Monad. > > For Functor, I would like to be able to implement it for a wider > variety of types, as there a

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor)

Well, you're going to wind up with a lot of cases where you really want a quantified context, even with just your Functor definition, but in that same spirit you can build an 'Applicative-like' instance as well. > type family Arg f :: * > type instance Arg [a -> b] = [a] > type family Result f ::

[Haskell-cafe] Removing polymorphism from type classes (viz. Functor)

Ok, so I have a small idea I'm trying to work on; call it a Prelude-rewrite if you want. For this I want to be able to have the hierarchy Functor → Applicative → Monad. For Functor, I would like to be able to implement it for a wider variety of types, as there are types which have aren't polymorph