>You can call the ensuing distinctions "matters of convenience" and not "requiring different things", of course. Or you can read the code and see that it is qu

>You can call the ensuing distinctions "matters of convenience" and not "requiring different things", of course. Or you can read the code and see that it is quite literally an abstraction layer built on the same tool, not two different tools. That is like saying folds and recursion require different tools, and providing "haskell has both recursion and folds" as proof. Of course it does, but folds are simply an abstraction on top of recursion.