On 16 October 2016 at 22:26, oldk1331 <oldk1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill, you were in the previous Monad discussion thread,
> what do you think of the Monad this time?
>

##
Advertising

As you can see, everyone is already quite fixed in their opinions
therefore I am very happy for your interest and in your suggestions.
In general I am in favor of your approach but given Waldek's more
pragmatic orientation I am not certain that it is a good match for
FriCAS. Rather than Haskell per se, personally I am most interested in
the "category theory" approach summarized in Martin's email, therefore
I prefer the alternative definition of monads as a domain satisfying
Functor
map :: (a -> b) -> M a -> M b
with these two additional operations:
return :: a -> M a
join :: M (M a) -> M a
instead of "bind".
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads#Monads_and_Category_Theory
I am not so concerned about any possible confusion between the name
"Functor" and the its earlier association with type constructors in
Axiom but I do like Ralf's suggestion to adopt the Aldor name
"Partial" rather than "Maybe". I think the usage of "Functor" in
Haskell is in this case a better match.
Concerning your hack for FunctorPackage and MonadPackage you might be
interested in another OpenAxiom innovation implementing the "forall"
universal quantifier which often eliminates the need to write separate
packages.
Bill Page.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fricas-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.