On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:42:24PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I found myself treading a path which led me to asking the same question as
> [1]. Given the answer [2], I'd like to stand back a little and ask if
> there's another way to tackle my niggle: what I'm interested in is a set
> compre
A few months ago, there was a discussion here about defining Set to be a
Monad, starting with:
[1] http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2004-March/005988.html
in response to which, SPJ pointed out that a Set cannot be a Monad:
[2] http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2004-March/
