-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Richard,
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 06:57, Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote:
>
> This is a weak argument.
>
> First of all it is not the case that imperative coders always specify a
> total ordering: multitasking, threading and interrupts (and their
> pr
Artie Gold writes:
>One way to think of it is to look at a program as a partially ordered
>set of calculations; some calculations need to occur before others,
>other groups can occur in any order. In an imperative language you
>specify a total ordering (which is overkill).
This is a weak argumen
At 12:47 PM -0600 1/16/02, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
>
>Let me offer a differing view of Monads.
>
>Monads are a way to write type-safe imperative programs within a functional
>framework. It's just an advanced version of PROGN kludge in LISP.
>
>Since they are based on a linear flow of "commands",
"Eray Ozkural (exa)" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Let me offer a differing view of Monads.
>
> Monads are a way to write type-safe imperative programs within a functional
> framework. It's just an advanced version of PROGN kludge in LISP.
>
> Since they are ba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Let me offer a differing view of Monads.
Monads are a way to write type-safe imperative programs within a functional
framework. It's just an advanced version of PROGN kludge in LISP.
Since they are based on a linear flow of "commands", they seem to
