I'd appreciate any added detail, since I had a similar reaction to Chouser, thus wasn't really grokking the monad (wikipedia's description is no more helpful).
On Dec 22, 2:10 pm, jim <jim.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chouser, > > You're right that maybe-comp is simpler. Once you realize that the > functions you want to compose are monadic functions under the maybe-m > monad, you get that composition for 'free', with no further mental > effort. With such a simple example, it's hard to see the benefit, but > with more complicated monads the difference between the monad > composition and ad-hoc style becomes greater. Where the ad-hoc version > would have to be debugged, the monad version would already be proven > to be correct. > > Beyond that, there are other things that you get 'for free' by using > the monad functions. Don't have time to enumerate them now but might > later. > > Jim > > On Dec 22, 3:14 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > It's interesting to me that the definition of maybe-comp above is > > arguably simpler that the definition of maybe-m, even without > > counting the machinery of 'defmonad'. Presumably this is a hint > > to how much more powerful maybe-m is than maybe-comp, and simply > > shows I don't yet understand the power of monads. > > > --Chouser > > -- > > -- I funded Clojure 2010, did you? http://clojure.org/funding -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
