implement (<**>) using (=<<) and (<$>) #47
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This version better reflects the documentation on L78: ```-- | Witness that all things with (=<<) and (<$>) also have (<*>).``` I was stumped by this exercise while going through https://github.com/system-f/fp-course and came here looking for a solution. Eventually I figured out this formulation, which I think is more fitting. It's actually not immediately obvious to me (a beginner) that `(>>=)` is defined here.
Owner
|
Yeah sorry you got stuck. Both are equivalent. You can jump on chat and get help if you get stuck again. Cheers! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This version better reflects the documentation on L78:
-- | Witness that all things with (=<<) and (<$>) also have (<*>).I was stumped by this exercise while going through https://github.com/system-f/fp-course
and came here looking for a solution. Eventually I figured out this formulation, which I think
is more fitting. It's actually not immediately obvious to me (a beginner) that
(>>=)isdefined here.