Alexey Karakulov ankaraku...@gmail.com 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
On 15 August 2010 08:50, 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 *?
Conor McBride has suggested
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 about
I was inspired by George Pollard's
posthttp://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-July/063981.htmlat
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
Alexey Karakulov ankaraku...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexey Karakulov ankaraku...@gmail.com 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
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:
On 14 August 2010 20:27, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com 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
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 are
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
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 :: *
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
