On 14/08/07, Dan Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snips another metaphor for monadic programming]
No offence to Dan, whose post I enjoyed. The concept of wrapping is as
close a metaphor as we seem to get without disagreements. But this has
brought me to a realisation, after Paul Erdos:
The
snark
As you know, an arrow tutorial is like a wrapper around a monad tutorial, sort of like a container
around it that can do extra actions with sufficient lifting. The appropriate higher-order function
to convert monad tutorials to arrow tutorials will be left as an exercise to the reader.
On 8/14/07, Dan Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conor McBride and Ross Paterson said it best in the introduction to
their paper Applicative programming with effects [1]:
As von Neumann said: Young man, in mathematics you don't understand
things, you just get used to them.
Getting used to
On 8/14/07, Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm becoming more and more convinced that metaphors for monads do more harm
than good. From now on
I'm going to describe monads as purely abstract entities that obey certain
laws, and that _in
certain instances_ can be viewed to be like
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 16:02 -0700, Dan Piponi wrote:
. . .
On 8/14/07, Michael Vanier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reminded of
a physics teacher who was having a similar problem explaining the concept
of tensors, until he said
that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
