On 14/08/05, Carl Marks id2359 at yahoo.com wrote:
Is there any text/article which makes precise/rigorous/explicit
the connection between the category theoretic definition of
monad with the haskell implementation?
I did try to do this in my (rejected) paper A monadic
interpretation of tactics
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Basically, though, the Haskell implementation _is_ the category theoretic
definition of monad, with bind/return used instead of (f)map/join/return as
described below.
Doesn't the Haskell
On 22/08/05, Chung-chieh Shan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
Basically, though, the Haskell implementation _is_ the category theoretic
definition of monad, with bind/return used instead of
