On 14 December 2011 17:08, Gregory Crosswhite <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > > Correct. And your example of "some (Just 1)" inflooping was not a > counterargument, but rather an illustration that perhaps some people (and > I'm not trying to imply you here, don't worry) don't understand what some > and many are supposed to do. > > > But if you can't determine whether you can use certain methods of a > typeclass without first knowing more about what type you are working with, > then that breaks the abstraction since you can no longer treat a typeclass > as a promise that given set of methods can be applied to a type.
Doesn't this already apply to much of "Monadic" code? Apart from some basic combinators in Control.Monad or the definitions of monad transformers, how much of what you write in do-blocks is applicable to some generic Monad instance as opposed to a specific Monad? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic [email protected] IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
