> > I see---also fair enough. How do you implement things like return (for > monads) or mempty (for monoids) with protocols? I assume it's the > perceived desirability of not having to pass in a parameter > corresponding to some concrete monad/monoid/whatever to be able to get > the right function for m-return or whatever. A protocol for functors > does seem more straightforward to implement. > > I realized that most of the time I was creating an instance out of another; when I wasn't, I could just use a regular constructor, not a monadic one. Thus I came to write code like this for the Writer monad and others; notice the recurrence of "return this" or mempty working on "this"; here's where the protocol and type pay off. (I'll put this lib out before long, hoping I can explain it.) At any rate that's the best I've managed so far.
https://gist.github.com/4590513 I asked for self-interested reasons; I have a macro (arguably a silly > one) for writing monadic code in a style I prefer to domonad (and > would also prefer to your bind macro) [1] and would like to be able to > use it with arbitrary things that are monadic. That can't really > happen if everyone has his own monad interface. > You did a good great with that macro. It's the most flexible and clean I've seen; it really captures the do notation. Your last point is well taken, as I'll soon find myself in the same boat with other work. -- 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
