On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:23:13AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tomasz Zielonka: > > >Programmers define the >>= method for their monads because they want to > >use it to bind computations. They know how to pass result(s) from > >one computation in their Monad to another, and they put this algorithm > >in the implementation of >>=. If they didn't care about passing results > >from one computation to the next one, they wouldn't be using monads in > >the first place. > > Shrug. > If these programmers didn't care about passing results from one computation > to the next one, they wouldn't use functional programming at all. > Hm. > Would it still be "programming"?...
I myself wanted to write that then they wouldn't be using a general purpose programming language, but something like HTML, etc. But then I thought that you may want to have "computations" that can't pass values between each other. One example is an algebraic datatype for describing tree-like structures - but you could argue that there is a bottom-up data flow. Anyway, I haven't thought about it too much... Best regards Tomasz _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
