On Feb 5, 2008 7:48 AM, Matthew Sackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I was thinking how dull and uninspiring the current definiton of
Monad really is and came up with some more interesting
parameterisations. The only problem with this one is I'm a) not sure if
it still is a Monad and b) very
Matthew,
Your SuperMonad seems remarkably similar to Gabor Greif's Thrist
datatype [1,2] reported only six days ago on this list [3].
Can you compare/contrast your class approach with his polymorphic type
approach? Or have I completely confused the two because of the similar
kind of their
Am 05.02.2008 um 21:27 schrieb Dan Weston:
Matthew,
Your SuperMonad seems remarkably similar to Gabor Greif's Thrist
datatype [1,2] reported only six days ago on this list [3].
Can you compare/contrast your class approach with his polymorphic
type approach? Or have I completely confused
