> I know this has been written about way too much, but I was
> wondering what
> people thought about using 'liftM f' as opposed to '>>=
> return . f'. I
> would probably have written Andrew's code using liftM, but I
> don't know if
> one is necessarily better than the other. Does anyone have strong
> thoughts on this?
so, using liftM:
(number g >>= return . show)
becomes
(liftM show (number g))
or
(show `liftM` number g)
but it's important not to get too carried away with abstractions - this
example requires a bit of a trawl around the library documentation for
someone not familiar with liftM. Personally, unless I was writing
fragments like this a lot, I'd just write it as
(do r <- number g; return (show r))
Each to his own I suppose.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
