Continuation monad "interface"

The state monad "interface"

class MonadState s m where
    get :: m s
    put :: s -> m ()

(+ return and bind) allows to construc开发者_运维知识库t any possible computation with State monad without using State constructor. For example, State $ \s -> (s+1, s-1) can be written as

 do s <- get
    put (s-1)
    return (s+1)

Similarily, I never have to use Reader constructor, because I can create that computation using ask, return and (>>=). Precisely: Reader f == ask >>= return . f.

Is it the same true for continuations - is it possible to write all instances of Cont r a using callCC (the only function in MonadCont), return and bind, and never type something like Cont (\c -> ...)?

---

I don't think so. Looking at the types:

Cont :: ((a -> r) -> r) -> Cont r a
callCC :: ((a -> Cont r b) -> Cont r a) -> Cont r a

If you only have callCC, there is no use of r as a type anywhere - it could be of any kind. So I don't know how you could translate something that uses it as a type, eg:

Cont (const 42) :: Cont Int a

I have no way of constraining r if I only have callCC.

Anyway, that's my hunch. Not terribly rigorous, but it seems convincing.