Comments on: Lifting (Haskell addendum) http://blog.tmorris.net/lifting-haskell-addendum/ The weblog of Tony Morris Sat, 19 May 2012 02:53:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Eyal Lotem http://blog.tmorris.net/lifting-haskell-addendum/#comment-126870 Eyal Lotem Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:20:52 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1039#comment-126870 I'd suggest separating it into the relevant classes. Lift0 (Pointed): class Lift0 f where lift0 :: a -> f a Lift1 (Functor): class Lift1 f where lift1 :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b Lift2 (ap): class Lift1 f => Lift2 f where lift2 :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c Lift (Applicative): class (Lift0 f, Lift2 f) => Lift f where I’d suggest separating it into the relevant classes.

Lift0 (Pointed):

class Lift0 f where lift0 :: a -> f a

Lift1 (Functor):

class Lift1 f where lift1 :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Lift2 (ap):

class Lift1 f => Lift2 f where lift2 :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c

Lift (Applicative):

class (Lift0 f, Lift2 f) => Lift f where

]]> By: beroal http://blog.tmorris.net/lifting-haskell-addendum/#comment-118421 beroal Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:21:42 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1039#comment-118421 <em>Isn’t that just an applicative functor?</em> Actually we do not know, because no axioms are given. It may be anything. ;) Isn’t that just an applicative functor?
Actually we do not know, because no axioms are given. It may be anything. ;)

]]> By: Tony Morris http://blog.tmorris.net/lifting-haskell-addendum/#comment-106059 Tony Morris Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:59:53 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1039#comment-106059 Yes. Yes.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.tmorris.net/lifting-haskell-addendum/#comment-106057 Tom Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:38:46 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=1039#comment-106057 Isn't that just an applicative functor? Isn’t that just an applicative functor?

]]>