On 22.12.2009, at 22:14, Chouser wrote:

> It's interesting to me that the definition of maybe-comp above is
> arguably simpler that the definition of maybe-m, even without
> counting the machinery of 'defmonad'.  Presumably this is a hint
> to how much more powerful maybe-m is than maybe-comp, and simply
> shows I don't yet understand the power of monads.

If the only monad you are ever going to use is maybe-m, then indeed  
you are better off with your specialized maybe-comp function. But you  
can make the same point about any abstraction; they never pay off for  
a single application. What you gain with monads compared to maybe-comp  
and similar special cases is generality: you can apply the monad  
approach to function composition to many different situations and  
don't have to start from scratch each time.

Konrad.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en

Reply via email to