jerzy.karczmarc...@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
> Alberto G. Corona writes:
>
> > (...) Desugarize the "do" notation, after that, desugarize the >>=
> > and >> operators down to the function call notation and suddenly
> > everithing lost its magic because it becomes clear that a haskell
> > monad is a sugarization of plain functional tricks.
>
> Yep.
>
> But, BTW, could you tell me what was the result of the final
> desugarization and the BASIC sense of the IO monad for you?
Example:
do x <- getLine
print (x+1)
print (x+2)
There are various models. One (the state monad model) of them would
desugar this to:
\world0 ->
let (x, world1) = getLine world0
world2 = print (x+1) world1
world3 = print (x+2) world2
in world3
Another one (the EDSL model, which I personally prefer) would desugar it
to something as simple as this:
GetLine `BindIO` \x ->
Print (x+1) `BindIO`
const (Print (x+2))
I wonder if there are more models for IO.
Greets,
Ertugrul
--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://ertes.de/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
