On 01/08/07, Andrew Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems wrong to me. A monad is, first and foremost, a type > constructor class. I'm not sure how you can really compare that to a > loop. But perhaps the easiest way to test your definition would be to > ask this: How is, for example, the Maybe monad like a loop, in your > definition?
I am baffled by this discussion. I thought monads were something to do with boxes of toxic apples in space? Obviously we can relate monadic apples to arrows through the William Tell analogy. And erm... yeah. Still needs a little polishing. I just hope the whole metaphor isn't rotten to the core. I will be here all week. Please, try the spice cake. Cheers, D. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
