Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:13:37PM -0800, Jonathan Cast wrote:
>
>> (On the other hand, your hunch that lift = return is correct --- so you
>> get a cookie for that; it's just that return here is neither the return
>> of the monad for m nor the return of the monad for ReaderT m. It is,
>> instead, the return of the *applicative functor* --- on the category of
>> monads and monad homomorphisms --- associated to the monad transformer
>> ReaderT.)
>>
>
> It's also a monad in the category of monads, as are ErrorT, StateT and
> WriteT (see Moggi, An Abstract View of Programming Languages, 1989, s4).
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
Monads in the (2-)category of monads correspond to distributive laws
(see Formal theory of Monads by Street, 1972).
StateT does not arise from a distributive law.
In particular, you would need a map
tjoin :: Monad m => StateT (StateT m) a -> StateT m a
:: Monad m = (s -> s -> m ((a,s),s)) -> s -> m (a,s)
subject to the monad laws (where
lift :: Monad m => m a -> StateT m a
is the unit, i.e. return)
All the best
- Mauro
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
