Received: from [203.195.103.161] by openbrick.kicks-ass.net (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.6.0)); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:49:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 15565 invoked by uid 0); 14 Aug 2007 03:49:14 -0000 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCMSdFVDVcMVg2YSQvJEtNLSRrNlBMM0BoGyhC
Dirk Thierbach wrote: Yes, but not every type constructor is a monad. Actually, only very few of them are monads. To be a monad, the type must support two operations "return" and (>>=) with a given signature, and must also obey three laws. Then you can make them an instance of the typeclass "Monad". See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monad That's the "low level" view
----- I like fighting :P ----- Bologna/Italy, Globalfight Personals: WinstonSmith City: Bologna State/Country: Italy Age: 22 Taste: Gay Prefers: I would like to meet someone close to my age I'm a beginner :P I just want to play some submission fighting with boys of my same age (more or less). And also same weight, if possible :) NB: I'm NOT a premium member
Simon Richard Clarkstone wrote: Well, these particular examples could both be typed if there were something like "union types". Using Java's syntax for interface unions: app2 :: (a -> b && c -> d) -> (a,b) -> (c,d) twice :: (a -> b && b -> c) -> a -> c I worded that very badly. "Type1 && Type2" in Java means an item from the intersection of the sets of items of each type, which
