On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 09:06 -0700, Brian Craft wrote: > First, do monads provide a generic solution, so I can apply > f(g(h(x)))?
Yes. control.algo.monads provides it as m-chain. The closest equivalent to m-chain in Haskell is (foldl' (>=>) return), but in most situations you would favor f =<< g =<< h x for your example, or more compositionally (f <=< g <=< h) x. > Second, is it the whole point of monads to use macros so you don't see > the glue functions, like s(), in my example? I mean, we can always > write glue functions so we can compose functions with different > input/output types without using monads. We can always write things out explicitly instead of exploiting existing abstractions. As for macros, the above samples use ordinary Haskell function calls. -- Stephen Compall "^aCollection allSatisfy: [:each | aCondition]": less is better than -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
