<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/2/5 Gregg Reynolds <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dev@mobileink.com">dev@mobileink.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Richard O'Keefe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ok@cs.otago.ac.nz" target="_blank">ok@cs.otago.ac.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
On 5 Feb 2009, at 10:20 am, Gregg Reynolds wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
That's a fairly common representation, seems to work for lots of people, but it caused me no end of trouble. Values are mathematical objects; how, I asked myself, can they possibly /be/ programs that do IO (or actions, or computations, or <your metaphor here>)? It doesn't make sense, says I,<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
without reference to the rest of your message, of course values can /be/<br>
programs.</blockquote><div><br>Not "programs", but "programs that do IO". The point of the idiom is that there's an external side effect involved. What sticks in my craw is that "a mathematical value with a non-mathematical side effect" is, well, non-mathematical and possibly nonsensical. I know it works for some (most?) people, but for me it lacks Geometry and Theology.<br>
<br>-g<br></div></div><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the point of the Monad is that it works as a container of stuff, that still allows mathematically pure things to happen, while possibly having some opaque "other stuff" going on. If you have a monadic add operation, and a Monad of some kind that "Contains an Integer", you can call the Monadic add operation on a pair of those monads, and some of the other monadic gluey-stuff that happens in between can combine the "other stuff" in specific ways, depending on how the Monad is defined. If it's the identity monad, it might not be that interesting, but if it's a writer monad, it might log things that are going on. m 1 + m 2 = m3, but what happened inside the "m" is entirely up to how that "m" is defined.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Does that make it a little easier to understand? IO could have happened in the "m", but there's still a pure peace.... sometimes :-) (there's nothing stopping you reading an integer from the keyboard and returning it to totally break down that analogy I suppose).</div>
<div><br></div><div>At least this is how I like to think of Monads. If you want more guarantees about operations, keep them pure, and then you only have to really scrutinize the monad-using bits to see where your program can get screwy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I realize that might not make the mathematician in you feel tons better, but *shrug*.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>