That's a good answer! I've enjoyed reading the documentation of both fluokitten and morph and understood it. The functionality certainly seems useful.
Phil Dragan Djuric <[email protected]> writes: > If Clojure has all of the Haskell's type features, I guess there would be > only one Clojure monad library, more or less a direct port of Haskell's. As > Clojure is different, there are different ways to approach monads from > neither of which can be the same as Haskell's, each having its pros and > cons, so there are many libraries. Additional motivation in my case is that > the other libraries (except morph, which is also a newcomer) were poorly > documented or not documented at all, and that even simple examples from > Haskell literature were not simple at all in those libraries, and in many > cases, not even supported (many of them don't even define functors and > monoids, let alone applicative functors). > > What I've not yet understood is what the difference is between all of >> these libraries? >> >> > > -- -- Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827 Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: [email protected] School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples Newcastle University, twitter: phillord NE1 7RU -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
