On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 14:37 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:23:53 AM, you wrote:
>
> >> That's a tough call to make. Changing the kind of Sequence to * from *
> >> -> * means losing the Functor, Monad, and MonadPlus superclasses and
> >> all the various
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:43:23 AM, you wrote:
As you've pointed out, there are 2 separate issues that are in
danger of being confused:
1) Forcing all sequence instances to support all operations
2) Bundling all the ops into a single huge class
Collection
Hello Einar,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 1:58:30 PM, you wrote:
> class ElementType c a | c -> a
> class Foldable c where
> fold :: ElementType c a => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> c -> b
i love it! will it be possible to write smth like this:
class Stream m h | h->m
data T h = (Stream m h) => C (m Int
Hello John,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 6:27:29 AM, you wrote:
> It is best to think of haskell primitives as something completely new,
> they reuse some naming conventions from OO programming, but that doesn't
> mean they suffer from the same limitations. It took me a few trys to
> wrap my brain ar
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:43:23 AM, you wrote:
> As you've pointed out, there are 2 separate issues that are in danger of
> being confused:
> 1) Forcing all sequence instances to support all operations
> 2) Bundling all the ops into a single huge class
Collections library (darcs ge
Hello Brian,
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 4:23:53 AM, you wrote:
>> That's a tough call to make. Changing the kind of Sequence to * from *
>> -> * means losing the Functor, Monad, and MonadPlus superclasses and
>> all the various maps and zips.
> But there's no option if you want to be able to suppo
