Personal tools

Talk:What a Monad is not

From HaskellWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

1 Nicolas Pouillard Comments

I disagree with: "So ordering is not in any way essential to what a monad is."

There is commutative monads, great! Other than that the order is important. Moreover there is nothing wrong to see >>= as a sequencing operator.

I also disagree the "IO is impure" paragraph: Indeed only IO will trigger visible side effects, but this is only due to the common evaluation of IO primitives. Moreover I would say that only the runtime system is impure because it does reduce 'main :: IO ()', other than that we are just building a computation plan in a pure way.

Although I agree that the common issue is too mix monad and impurity, and the impurity question is only releated to IO.

2 "Monads are not values"

Yes they are! But they are not of the type of their arguments. For instance "return 3" is a value that has (or can have) type "IO Int". But it is not a value of type Int. —Ashley Y 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[Nicolas Pouillard]: The point was that the IO monad is not a value, of course there is values of type "IO Int". However the record/dictionary is a value and one could say that it is the monad.

3 In what sense is Maybe commutative?

It seems to me that
Maybe
is not really a commutative monad, as claimed here and at Monad.
do
  x <- Nothing
  y <- undefined
  return (x+y)
produces
Nothing
whereas
do
  y <- undefined
  x <- Nothing
  return (x+y)
produces
undefined
. Note that the
Reader
monad (also mentioned in Monad) does appear to be commutative.

--Dfeuer (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)