<p dir="ltr">Yes they are. Purely intuitively, you can see how writing code in a monadic style (using >>= a lot) is very similar to writing in continuation-passing style.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You can express this the most directly with the continuation monad. Then, from this monad, you can express other monads. In some sense, the continuation monad is very fundamental. Take a look at "The Mother of all Monads"[1] from The Neighborhood of Infinity for more details.</p>
<p dir="ltr">[1]: <a href="http://blog.sigfpe.com/2008/12/mother-of-all-monads.html?m=1">http://blog.sigfpe.com/2008/12/mother-of-all-monads.html?m=1</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 17, 2013 7:02 PM, "Christopher Howard" <<a href="mailto:christopher.howard@frigidcode.com">christopher.howard@frigidcode.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Q: Are the "continuations" in Scheme related to the "monads" from Haskell? If so, could someone elaborate on that?<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div>