Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7005627
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T21:22:30+00:00 2026-05-27T21:22:30+00:00

When reading up on type classes I have seen that the relationship between Functors,

  • 0

When reading up on type classes I have seen that the relationship between Functors, Applicative Functors, and Monads is that of strictly increasing power. Functors are types that can be mapped over. Applicative Functors can do the same things with certain effects. Monads the same with possibly unrestrictive effects. Moreover:

Every Monad is an Applicative Functor
Every Applicative Functor is a Functor

The definition of the Applicative Functor shows this clearly with:

class Functor f => Applicative f where
  pure  :: a -> f a
  (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

But the definition of Monad is:

class Monad m where
  return :: a -> m a
  (>>=)  :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
  (>>)   :: m a -> m b -> m b
  m >> n = m >>= \_ -> n
  fail   :: String -> m a

According to Brent Yorgey’s great typeclassopedia that an alternative definition of monad could be:

class Applicative m => Monad' m where
  (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

which is obviously simpler and would cement that Functor < Applicative Functor < Monad. So why isn’t this the definition? I know applicative functors are new, but according to the 2010 Haskell Report page 80, this hasn’t changed. Why is this?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T21:22:30+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 9:22 pm

    Everyone wants to see Applicative become a superclass of Monad, but it would break so much code (if return is eliminated, every current Monad instance becomes invalid) that everyone wants to hold off until we can extend the language in such a way that avoids breaking the code (see here for one prominent proposal).

    Haskell 2010 was a conservative, incremental improvement in general, standardising only a few uncontroversial extensions and breaking compatibility in one area to bring the standard in line with every existing implementation. Indeed, Haskell 2010’s libraries don’t even include Applicative — less of what people have come to expect from the standard library is standardised than you might expect.

    Hopefully we’ll see the situation improve soon, but thankfully it’s usually only a mild inconvenience (having to write liftM instead of fmap in generic code, etc.).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have started reading C++ and I have a question about classes and member
Let's say that I have two classes A and B. class A { private:
So I was reading http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.0/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html , and came across this: type __sync_and_and_fetch (type *ptr,
Functional programming .. is like classic ( Mark Twain's type ). While reading another
After reading the MSDN reference, I still have questions about when to use the
I'm trying to create some classes that allow me to retrieve and manipulate a
I'm writing a set of collection classes for different types of Trees. I'm doing
I have been reading the various blog posts on how to deal with a
I have just started learning Objective-C, I am reading Programming in Objective-C 3rd Edition
I have the following structures defined (names are anonymised, but data types are correct):

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.