I do not have experience commposing monads (maybe John Hughes can
chime in?), but I'll address where Bernhard Reus writes:
>This can be avoided by using type
>aliases but then the monads in use cannot be instances of the Monad
>class.
>But not declaring the monads to be in class Monad can hardly
>be good style, can it?
GHC's source code defines many monads not in class Monad.
I'll write some untested code to give an idea of
the naming conventions used:
type FooMd out = (a,b,c)->((a,b,c),out)
returnFooMd out = \s0->out
thenFooMd p k = \s0->let (s,out) = p s0
in k out s
method1FooMd ... = ...
method2FooMd ... = ...
the biggest disadvantage is that you cannot use
the do notation but rather have to write, eg,
method1FooMd x y `thenFooMd` (\result1->
method2FooMd z result1 `thenFooMd` (\result2->
...
of course, you also cannot use liftM and other library functions with
(Monad m)=> in their signature, but I do not mind that so much as loss
of the do notation.
--
Richard Uhtenwoldt
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
