<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Menendez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@zednenem.com">dave@zednenem.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div class="im">On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:23 AM, John Lato <<a href="mailto:jwlato@gmail.com">jwlato@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">> +1 for using the proper constraints, and especially for bringing over<br>
> Pointed (and anything else that applies).<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">What's the argument for Pointed? Are there many types which are<br>
instances of Pointed but not Applicative? Are there many algorithms<br>
which require Pointed but not Applicative?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Having Pointed is categorically the right thing to do, which is why I argue for its inclusion. Also, I think it would be prudent to avoid a situation with the possibility of turning into a rehash of the Functor/Applicative/Monad mess.<br>
<br>Are there any good reasons for not including it? Just because we don't have a use now doesn't mean it might not be useful in the future.<br><br>John<br></div></div>