Like point free notation, I worry about what somebody somewhere is doing to
it :)
The existence of a well understood community standard (add a type signature
to your functions and only use monad operators with the laws) helps a lot -
but both pieces are optional. I suppose the shorter and mo
clifford.beshers:
>
>Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
>
> david:
>
>
>Ah... so the secret is in the hidden variables. On some
>level I am beginning to fear that Monads resurrect some of
>the scariest aspects of method overriding from my OO
>programming days. Do you (all) ever
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
david:
Ah... so the secret is in the hidden variables. On some
level I am beginning to fear that Monads resurrect some of
the scariest aspects of method overriding from my OO
programming days. Do you (all) ever find that the ever
changing nature of
david:
>
>Ah... so the secret is in the hidden variables. On some
>level I am beginning to fear that Monads resurrect some of
>the scariest aspects of method overriding from my OO
>programming days. Do you (all) ever find that the ever
>changing nature of >>= makes code hard
Ah... so the secret is in the hidden variables. On some level I am
beginning to fear that Monads resurrect some of the scariest aspects of
method overriding from my OO programming days. Do you (all) ever find that
the ever changing nature of >>= makes code hard to read?
On 4/15/07, jeff p <[EM
Hello,
On 4/15/07, David Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so... this is likely a question based on serious misunderstandings, but can
anyone help me understand the exact mechanism by which monads enforce
sequencing?
Monads do not enforce sequencing.
In general, data dependencies enforce sequ
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:04:41PM -0400, David Powers wrote:
> so... this is likely a question based on serious misunderstandings, but can
> anyone help me understand the exact mechanism by which monads enforce
> sequencing? Specifically, I'm confused by the >> operator. If I understand
> things
so... this is likely a question based on serious misunderstandings, but can
anyone help me understand the exact mechanism by which monads enforce
sequencing? Specifically, I'm confused by the >> operator. If I understand
things properly f a >> g expands to something like:
f >>= \_ -> g
What I'
