I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Say I have something like that, then
what's the difference between saying:
f = do { action1;
action2;
action3 }
and simply
f = do action3
?
If the result of each of the actions is ignored for the following ones,
why do we need to do this monadically?
--
Hal Daume III
"Computer science is no more about computers | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Andre W B Furtado wrote:
> Roughly speaking, I'm in need of a monad (say MyIO) that interprets the
> following code
>
> >f :: MyIO ()
> >f = do
> > action1
> > action2
> > action3
> > ...
> > return ()
>
>
> as applying action1 to g, then action2 to the SAME g (not the result of
> action1) and so on...
>
> Of course, this "g" will be specified when starting the monad (something
> like "runMyIO g"). Does this "composition monad" already exist? If no, can
> anyone give me some hints to create my own?
>
> Thanks a lot
> -- Andre
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
