You could look into the Generic Monoid solution proposed in your
other thread, then you wouldn't need your Socket types - you would
use the Generic Monoid machinery to make a Monoid instance for
whatever type needed it.
This approach loses some type-safety, as you might pass on version of
a
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a synonym of the type?
The idea would be something like this...
code:
type SpaceShip =
On 22 December 2012 00:36, Christopher Howard
christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a
Hi Christopher,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 04:36:04AM -0900, Christopher Howard wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 04:36 -0900, Christopher Howard wrote:
Using a simple type I gave earlier from my monadic type question...
code:
data Socket3 a b c = Socket3 a b c
deriving (Show)
Is it possible somehow to layer on record syntax onto a synonym of the type?
On 12/21/2012 04:52 AM, Daniel Trstenjak wrote:
Why having a Socket3 in the first place, what's the point of it?
The idea was to have some generic structures (Sockets) which were
already instanced into the Monoids-within-Monoids abstraction, yet could
still be made concrete into anything
