Difference between revisions of "Talk:Functor hierarchy proposal"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:You can't put defaults for one class in another. Though that could be another proposal. —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC) |
:You can't put defaults for one class in another. Though that could be another proposal. —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::Wasn't this part of John Meacham's class system proposal? What happend to this? -- [[User:Wolfgang Jeltsch|Wolfgang Jeltsch]] 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:25, 2 February 2006
Um, it would be good if it was something like:
class (Idiom f) => Monad f where fmap f m = m >>= return . f -- or ap . return ? ap mf mv = mf >>= \f -> mv >>= \v -> return $ f v (>>=) :: f a -> (a -> f b) -> f b
Or am I missing the point?
Serhei 15:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- You can't put defaults for one class in another. Though that could be another proposal. —Ashley Y 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't this part of John Meacham's class system proposal? What happend to this? -- Wolfgang Jeltsch 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)