On 8/2/07, Dan Piponi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that talking about Monads without Kleisli arrows is like > talking about category theory without arrows, or at least sets without > functions. In each case, without the latter, the former is more or > less useless.
The chapter on monads in Bird's "Introduction to Functional Programming using Haskell" introduces an operator (<>) that's equivalent to (>>>) on Kleisli arrows, without the intermediate newtype. One nice property of this operator is that it turns "return" into a genuine identity, rather than the weird pseudo-identity that it forms with (>>=). Sadly I don't actually own a copy of the book, so most of this is from memory. > Also, I'm having a terminological difficulty that maybe someone can help with: > > [snip][What's a good word for an object of type IO Int?] I tend to call it a "value in the [IO] monad". I don't claim to be a canonical reference, though. Stuart _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
