4 ms·
Looks like that that's not a valid monad in general.[0] And also, I feel like it's a stretch to say that "almost all specific monads" are traversable. [0]: htt
by creata 5y ago
Looks like that that's not a valid monad in general.[0] And also, I feel like it's a stretch to say that "almost all specific monads" are traversable.
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42284879/is-the-composition-of-an-arbitrary-monad-with-a-traversable-always-a-monad https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42284879/is-the-composit...
- a1369209993 5y agoI'm not convinced (Bool->) is a legitimate Traversable[0], but that's at least highly concerning and makes me wish the typechecker could properly handle "Instances should satisfy the following laws" comments as actual code. 0: in vaguely the same way that Int isn't a legitimate Monoid because you get nonsense by switching back and forth between sum and product (and min, max, xor, and, or, etc)