Monads are a great thing to learn because they can be used in so many ways to make code simpler and more modular. But, they require an investment of time to understand. You'll definitely be a better programmer by trying to understand them. I'd say go for it, but realize that it's going to be a steep learning curve at first.
Jim On Apr 27, 5:48 pm, samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a library called FnParse, and I'm wondering if I should rewrite > it using monads. (You can see FnParse's documentation at <http:// > wiki.github.com/joshua-choi/fnparse> and its implementation at <http:// > github.com/joshua-choi/fnparse/blob/ > 065cc97da4c368e10d901edacbe885bd3a8443a1/src/name/choi/joshua/ > fnparse.clj>.) It implements a bunch of "rule functions" that consume > tokens: > Sequence of tokens -> [a new product from the consumed tokens, > remaining tokens] > > Right now, my basic rule-combining functions use loops over the rules > to be combined. > > Now, I've been reading the Clojure monad introductions that have been > popping up around, and some things that struck me as interesting were > that parsers could be elegantly implemented using monads, and that > monads were modular and combinable. > > I don't know enough about monads, though, to know if it'd be worth > trying to rewrite my library in it. It seems like if do that, people > may be able to directly use the new monads in their own monads, but > I'm not sure. My library is working fine as of now—would it be worth > it to add monads to it? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
