Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 Sep 27, at 12:41, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm not sure how that qualifies set as "not really a true monad
anyway" - but then, I don't know what a monad is, originally. I only
know what it means in Haskell.
I think you read him backwards: Map and Set are category-theory
("true") monads, but they can't be Haskell Monads because Haskell
isn't expressive enough to represent more than a subset of
category-theoretical monads.
Ah, OK. That makes more sense then...
What (if anything) do we do about that?
I'm not actually bothered about every possible monad being representable
as such in Haskell. I'd just like Set to work. ;-)
Also... Who or what is an Oleg, and why do I keep hearing about it? ;-)
Oleg Kiselyov. http://okmij.org/ftp/
He's somewhat legendary in the Haskell community for his ability to
make Haskell do what people think it can't, and his tendency to
program at the type level instead of at the value level like most
people. :)
Ah - so the "Prolog programs as type signatures" thing is *his* fault?! ;-)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
