I would expand your definition of "monadic" to:<br>"able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence where an operation can be altered by the results of the operations preceeding it".<br>
IMO your definition matches more "applicative".<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/6/18 Alexander Solla <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@2piix.com">ajs@2piix.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
While we're on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they say "monads"?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Yes, almost every time. They seem to catch on if I say "monadic" when I mean "able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence".<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>