hi, at some level you are right that some more syntactic sugar and stuff could make monads more atracitve. for the time being here is how i'd write what you want bellow:
f # m = liftM f m mx === my = liftM2 (==) m1 m2
assertBool "fail" $ (length # someFunc a) === (length # someFunc b)
at the moment we only have syntactic sugar for working with the list monad
(list comprehensions etc), and environemnt (aka reader) monad (implicit parameters).
hope this helps -iavor
Sean E. Russell wrote:
Hello,
I posted this question to comp.lang.functional, and someone suggested that I try this group instead.
I'm struggling with monads. Well, not monads themselves, but mixing them with non-monadic functions.
Here's my base case:
someFunc :: String -> IO [a] ... ax <- someFunc a bx <- someFunc b assertBool "fail" $ length ax == length bx
I don't like the assignments; the typing is redundant, if I have a lot of asserts like this, and the "variables" are temporary. What I'd much rather have is:
... assertBool "fail" $ (length $ someFunc a) == (length $ someFunc b)
which is more readable, to my eye.
The only solution which has been suggested that may work is liberal use of the liftM variants, but this gets *really* tedious and obtuse.
Is there an elegant way to do what I want to do, or am I stuck with procedural-style assignments and bunches of temp vars?
Thanks!
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
