On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Ben Wolfson <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I think this, regarding the second law, is telling: "The second > does not too, since it says what happens when you bind with (pure m) not > (pure n)" > > *all* the laws only say what happen when you stay within the same monad, > because the types the laws give to >>= and return *require* that. > Addendum, if you're going to say that the various monad laws don't apply because the types differ, then you are, whether you like it or not, not talking about monads; monads are what the laws describe. -- Ben Wolfson "Human kind has used its intelligence to vary the flavour of drinks, which may be sweet, aromatic, fermented or spirit-based. ... Family and social life also offer numerous other occasions to consume drinks for pleasure." [Larousse, "Drink" entry] -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
