Kevin Jardine <kevinjard...@gmail.com> writes: > The more I learn about monads, however, the less I understand them. > I've seen plenty of comments suggesting that monads are easy to > understand, but for me they are not.
How did you learn monads? More and more people seem to be getting away from trying to say that monads are containers/burritos/etc. and just teaching them by way of the definition, either >>= and return or just join (ignoring that wart known as "fail"); Tillman alluded to this approach earlier. One way of doing so (e.g. by RWH) is to use these definitions in a specific (non-IO) monad (usually a parser) and then generalise them. If you want an alternative to RWH that takes this approach, I've found Tony Morris' take on this to be reasonable: Slides (currently seem to be down): http://projects.tmorris.net/public/what-does-monad-mean/artifacts/1.0/chunk-html/index.html Video: http://vimeo.com/8729673 -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
