Hi,
I think I now understand all the stuff about monades (not the
mathematics). I have just one further question.
Beside of the syntactic sugar of the do construct and the fact that
the IO monade is an internal type of haskell: Is haskell aware of
the concept of monades? As I now
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Tobias Kräntzer
i...@tobias-kraentzer.dewrote:
Hi,
I think I now understand all the stuff about monades (not the mathematics).
I have just one further question.
Beside of the syntactic sugar of the do construct and the fact that the
IO monade is an internal
Am 24.12.2008 um 11:56 schrieb Luke Palmer:
It is only a concept of the language insofar as it is needed to do
IO (because of the IO monad). You are correct that it is really
more of a programming model.
[...]
About the prestress, that's one of the motivations behind renaming
them (warm
I wouldn't call it a programming model so much as a library. A
programming model sounds to me like an idiom, whereas there's an actual
typeclass in the standard library called Monad. Yes, there's special sugar
built into GHC (and, likely, any haskell implementation) for it, but it
really is at its
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 11:03 -0600, Andrew Wagner wrote:
I wouldn't call it a programming model so much as a library. A
programming model sounds to me like an idiom, whereas there's an
actual typeclass in the standard library called Monad. Yes, there's
special sugar built into GHC (and, likely,
