State where not-bottom assumption was used

[TysonMN]

trafficstars

In your excellent article about how the first functor law implying the second in Haskell, I see where you used applied the first functor law and the free theorem, but I don't see where you assumed that none of the types involved were the bottom type.

Do you think you could improve that proof by making the use of this assumption explicit?

[TysonMN]

Do we need to assume no bottom type to obtain the free theorem for fmap?

[quchen]

Cleaning up old open issues/discussions.

I think you mean (well, meant – 2 years ago :grimacing:) bottom value, not type.

[TysonMN]

Really? I think I meant type.