Ronald Guida wrote:
From what I have read about applicative functors, they are weaker than
monads because with a monad, I can use the results of a computation to
select between alternative future computations and their side effects,
whereas with an applicative functor, I can only select between the
results of computations, while the structure of those computations and
their side effects are fixed in advance.
If you are not already aware of them, you might be interested in the
following two papers:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/arrows-and-idioms/arrows-and-idioms.pdf
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/arrows/arrows.pdf
("idioms" is a synonym for "applicative functors", and both papers also
discuss the relation to monads.)
Ciao, Janis.
--
Dr. Janis Voigtlaender
http://wwwtcs.inf.tu-dresden.de/~voigt/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
