One nit and one massive praise. nit first. in 'the monad laws and their importance' you say "given a monad M" and then outline the laws a functor must satisfy to be a monad. I would find it clearer to say 'a functor M', and then emphasise the iff relationship between the laws and the functor M.
the praise: footnote 3. the relationship between join and bind is why monads are useful and interesting for programmers. i haven't seen it stated more clearly before. i supose because people who know it assume it. suggestion: don't bury this in a footnote. On 1/16/07, David House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all, I've written a chapter for the Wikibook that attempts to teach some basic Category Theory in a Haskell hacker-friendly fashion. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory >From the article's introduction: "This article attempts to give an overview of category theory, insofar as it applies to Haskell. To this end, Haskell code will be given alongside the mathematical definitions. Absolute rigour is not followed; in its place, we seek to give the reader an intuitive feel for what the concepts of category theory are and how they relate to Haskell." I'd love comments from newcomers and experts alike regarding my approach, the content, improvements and so on. Of course, it's on the wikibook, so if you have anything to add (that's not _too_ substantial otherwise I'd recommend discussion first) then go ahead. Thanks in advance. -- -David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
