[Haskell-cafe] Re: Can we come out of a monad?

[aditya siram]

Agreed. In fact I have the most trouble imagining what Haskell code looked
like before monads.

-deech

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Richard O'Keefe <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> The thing that I found hardest to understand about monads is that
> they are used to obtain very special consequences (fitting things
> like I/O and updatable arrays into a functional language) without
> actually involving any special machinery.  Whenever you look for
> the magic, it's nowhere.  But it's happening none the less.  It's
> really the monad laws that matter; they express _just_ enough of
> the informal notion of doing things one after the other to be
> useful for side-effective things that need to be done one after
> the other without expressing so much that they preclude
> informally pure things like lists and maybes.
>
> There's a thing I'm still finding extremely hard about monads,
> and that's how to get into the frame of mind where inventing
> things like Monad and Applicative and Arrows is something I could
> do myself.  Functor, yes, I could have invented Functor.
> But not the others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20100802/be27eae7/attachment.html