<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Corentin,<br><br></div>This may be a good answer for some of your questions: <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7220436/good-examples-of-not-a-functor-functor-applicative-monad">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7220436/good-examples-of-not-a-functor-functor-applicative-monad</a><br>

<div><br>Kenn<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Corentin Dupont <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:corentin.dupont@gmail.com" target="_blank">corentin.dupont@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Hi everybody!<br></div>Two questions in one:<br></div>- When you define and instance of a Monad, why don't you get the Applicative and Functor instances for free? I seem that you can mechanically write them.<br>


</div>- Do you have examples of things that are Functors but not Applicative? Applicative but not Monads?<br><br></div>Tchuss<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>Corentin<br></font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>