Jim Apple wrote:
class MyMap f a b where
myMap :: (a - b) - f a - f b
instance (Functor f) = MyMap f a b where
myMap = fmap
instance (Ord a, Ord b) = MyMap Data.Set.Set a b where
myMap = Data.Set.map
OK (I guess).
But my point was that I want to use
do notation for Sets (in
On 3/1/06, Johannes Waldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But my point was that I want to use
do notation for Sets (in fact, for any kind of collection)
so I'd need the original Functor and Monad.
I understand this for Monad. Why not just redefine Functor, Oleg-style?
I couldn't use ghc's
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
But if contexts-on-datatypes worked correctly,
data Set a = Ord a =
then even the real map from Data.Set:
map :: (Ord a, Ord b) = (a - b) - Set a - Set b
could be an instance method of Functor.
I'd love that. But I don't quite understand:
do you
But if contexts-on-datatypes worked correctly,
data Set a = Ord a =
then even the real map from Data.Set:
map :: (Ord a, Ord b) = (a - b) - Set a - Set b
could be an instance method of Functor.
I'd love that. But I don't quite understand:
do you think this
On 2/28/06, Johannes Waldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
But if contexts-on-datatypes worked correctly,
data Set a = Ord a =
then even the real map from Data.Set:
map :: (Ord a, Ord b) = (a - b) - Set a - Set b
could be an instance method of
