[Haskell] Mixing monadic and non-monadic functions
Sean E. Russell
haskell at ser.fdns.net
Tue Mar 23 12:55:56 EST 2004
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 11:36, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I think you're a rather stuck with the "temporary variables" (which they're
> not really), but it might be possible to hide some of the untidiness in an
> auxiliary monadic function.
That seems to be the common suggestion: write my own visitors.
I'm just surprised that there isn't a more elegant mechanism for getting
interoperability between monadic and non-monadic functions. The current
state of affairs just seems awkward.
Caveat: I'm not smart enough, and I don't know enough, to criticize Haskell,
so please don't misconstrue my comments. To quote Einstein: "When I'm asking
simple questions and I'm getting simple answers, I'm talking to God." I
simply mistrust, and therefore question, systems where simple things are
The standard explaination about why monads are so troublesome always sounds
like an excuse to me. We have monads, because they allow side-effects. Ok.
If programs that used side effects were uncommon, I'd be fine with them being
troublesome -- but they aren't. Maybe it is just me, but my Haskell programs
invariably develop a need for side effects within a few tens of lines of
code, whether IO, Maybe, or whatnot. And I can't help but think that
language support to make dealing with monads easier -- that is, to integrate
monads with the rest of the language, so as to alleviate the need for
constant lifting -- would be a Good Thing.
Hmmm. Could I say that Haskell requires "heavy lifting"?
### http://www.germane-software.com/~ser jabber.com:ser ICQ:83578737
### GPG: http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Security/ser_public.gpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Url : http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell/attachments/20040323/54fc6ff0/attachment.bin
More information about the Haskell