On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Bill Page wrote: | | On 10/31/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Bill Page wrote: | > | > | On 10/31/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > | > | > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Bill Page wrote: | > | > ... | > | > | It might even be interesting to consider implementing | > | > | something akin to monads in Aldor/SPAD, | > | > | > | > There already existe a domain called Monad in the Axiom family -- | > | > it is a well mathematically defined notion. | > | > | > | | > | Perhaps I am being dense but I do not see what this has to do with the | > | concept of Monad in Haskell. | > | > They are the same categorial notion. | | That is not clear to me. | | > What you have in Haskell is a computer scientist application of the | > categorial notion of `monad'. | | Agreed.
I cannot reconcile both your statements. Anyway, check out "Comprehending Monads", by Philip Wadler Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming [...] | > Which makes some haskellers say that they did a really bad job | > at picking the name. | > | | Well, the language is called *Haskell* afterall. Do those haskellers | who think monad is a bad name even remember who Haskell Curry was!? | ;-) [Rhetorical, don't answer that ...] http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/haskell-retrospective/HaskellRetrospective.pdf skip to page 40. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer