3 ms·
Not on its own. Fortunately, it wasn't the entirety of my answer to the original question. When you're writing something like `sequence`, you don't need to kn
by dllthomas 9y ago
Not on its own. Fortunately, it wasn't the entirety of my answer to the original question. When you're writing something like `sequence`, you don't need to know the implementation of the interface you're working against. As you get comfortable in Haskell, more things are "like `sequence`". There will always be things that aren't - for those, as I said, you should look where the value is consumed. And as I neglected to say, you can always add a type annotation when things get unclear.
- dmitriid 9y agoAh, the old Java adage: any abstraction can be solved with many more layers of abstraction.