Tony Morris

@djspiewak @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin Yes, because I can't think of one and that will totally demonstrate your point!

@dibblego @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin An utterly useless example of a type with two (both valid!) monads: http://pastebin.com/C6WX8kkP 

@djspiewak @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin Yes thanks. Note demonstrate the connection to your conclusion. No failing.

@dibblego @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin The reason for this is the defn of a typeclass is almost never unambiguous given laws and types

@djspiewak @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin You can change almost never to never. It's still completely beside the point.

@dibblego @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin I’m sure we could contrive a typeclass and a set of laws which have only one inhabitant.

@djspiewak @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin No you couldn't. Don't test my imagination like that unless you want to play for real.

@dibblego @nuttycom @jdegoes @milessabin class Stuff a f :: a -> () Go.