On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Dragan Djuric <draga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree completely, when we stay inside Haskell. However, Clojure is > dynamic. Here are two objects that are equal despite having different types: > If you're going to talk about "category theory concepts", then that's the constraint you have to operate under. "monad" is constituted by the laws, the laws involve operations with a certain type, and that's just it. It's not a matter of being in Haskell or not, it's a matter of accurately implementing the concepts you claim to be implementing. I would actually maintain that a call to bind whose first argument is a vector but which returns a list (because it's implemented with mapcat, say) is not changing the monad, because you're actually operating in the list monad (what algo.monads calls the sequence monad, I think) and while the implementation might choose different ways of mapping the function depending on the type of the first argument to bind, that's an implementation detail. -- 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.
