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?
On 8/1/07, Kaveh Shahbazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is about to put a definition/description to test. So please cooperate! > ;) > Is this a useful – sufficient, not complete – definition/description for a > monad; for an imperative mind: (?) > > "A monad is like a loop that can run a new function against it's variable in > each iteration." > > (I insist on the simplicity! And I will resist any expansion of this > sentence (except for an exceptional note that I think of it hardly). > I think there is not any complete definitions in computer world. At least > there are many things to know when you want to use them in practice. So > please have this in mind and review me!) > > Cheers :) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
