On 27.12.2009, at 23:03, Vagif Verdi wrote:
Except different types of monads do not compose, so you have to create
another artificial structure called monad transformers. And these new
structures introduce so much new artificial complexity that any
possible simplification becomes a moot
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:44:31PM +0100, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
This fact is realized even in haskell community:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2749#comment-41078
That article is about monad transformers, not monads themselves. BTW,
monad transformers are simpler in Clojure than they are
Don't really understand what point you're making. The way I see it,
monads are incredibly useful for combining functions that all have the
same signature. When you realize that that's the domain you're working
in, you can use a monad and raise the level of abstraction that you're
working at. In
On 22.12.2009, at 22:14, Chouser wrote:
It's interesting to me that the definition of maybe-comp above is
arguably simpler that the definition of maybe-m, even without
counting the machinery of 'defmonad'. Presumably this is a hint
to how much more powerful maybe-m is than maybe-comp, and
Not on the topic, but quite important - that yellow column on the left is a
usability killer, it makes text hard to read.
I had to manually change it in Firebug just to read the article.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this
On Dec 22, 2:10 pm, jim jim.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Chouser,
You're right that maybe-comp is simpler. Once you realize that the
functions you want to compose are monadic functions under the maybe-m
monad, you get that composition for 'free', with no further mental
effort.
Except different
I'd appreciate any added detail, since I had a similar reaction to
Chouser, thus wasn't really grokking the monad (wikipedia's
description is no more helpful).
On Dec 22, 2:10 pm, jim jim.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Chouser,
You're right that maybe-comp is simpler. Once you realize that the
+1 ataggart, Chouser
On Dec 23, 3:02 pm, ataggart alex.tagg...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd appreciate any added detail, since I had a similar reaction to
Chouser, thus wasn't really grokking the monad (wikipedia's
description is no more helpful).
On Dec 22, 2:10 pm, jim jim.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll see what I can do.
On Dec 23, 2:18 pm, Sean Devlin francoisdev...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 ataggart, Chouser
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new
I've expanded the tutorial a little. You can skip to Another example
for the new stuff. I go through the same exercise using the
probability monad.
http://intensivesystems.net/tutorials/why_monads.html
There are some corresponding additions to the sample code as well.
Jim
On Dec 23, 2:18 pm,
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, jim jim.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Just posted a short piece on why monads are useful. This was prompted
by some conversations last week with some folks. Comments, questions
and criticisms welcome.
http://intensivesystems.net/tutorials/why_monads.html
Thanks for
Chouser,
You're right that maybe-comp is simpler. Once you realize that the
functions you want to compose are monadic functions under the maybe-m
monad, you get that composition for 'free', with no further mental
effort. With such a simple example, it's hard to see the benefit, but
with more
Just posted a short piece on why monads are useful. This was prompted
by some conversations last week with some folks. Comments, questions
and criticisms welcome.
http://intensivesystems.net/tutorials/why_monads.html
Jim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
13 matches
Mail list logo
