I would expand your definition of "monadic" to: "able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence where an operation can be altered by the results of the operations preceeding it". IMO your definition matches more "applicative".
2010/6/18 Alexander Solla <a...@2piix.com> > > On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote: > > While we're on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they say >> "monads"? >> > > Yes, almost every time. They seem to catch on if I say "monadic" when I > mean "able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence". > > _______________________________________________ > 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
