Tracy Harms-3 wrote: > > [...]My main desire in that > effort has been to understand what Haskell's monads and arrows *are*, > without going to the trouble of learning that language in depth. [...] > I should add here that Haskel's arrows are just another, slightly simplified without loss of generality, notation for & mentioned in my other reply to your post.
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Functional-solutions-to-side-effect-dependencies-tp20746859s24193p20754220.html Sent from the J Programming mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
