On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 14:17 , Donn Cave wrote:
Sure. It isn't a lot of code, so I subjected it to Either-ization
as an experiment, and I did indeed take the monad procedural route.
Monad != procedural, unless you insist on do notation. Think of it
as composition (it may be easier to use (=<<) which "points the
same direction" as (.)).
Yes, I insist on do notation, because it provides a convenient
binding form that works with what I'm doing - the original functional
variation wasn't so suited to composition either, and used `let'.
But I see that as only syntactic - equally procedural, either way.
Expressions are evaluated in a fixed order, so seems inherently
procedural to me and `do' is only a notational convenience.
Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
