I've read about four tutorials on monads so far, but it still escapes me. In fact, I'm still not sure what problem it solves. I'm familiar with the problem of having, say, three functions like f(a) -> b, g(c) -> d, h(e) -> f, which you'd like to chain like f(g(h(x))), but you can't because b is a different type from c and d is a different type from e. The monad tutorials all start with a problem like this, but I still can't tell if they're actually providing a solution, because it appears every monad is specific to a particular type. E.g. a sequence monad. So, great, I have something that takes a scalar and returns a sequence. That might solve g(h(x)) if f is a scalar and c is a sequence by letting me write g(s(h(x))), but it doesn't solve the whole problem, since I still have f() to worry about.
So, two specific questions. First, do monads provide a generic solution, so I can apply f(g(h(x)))? Second, is it the whole point of monads to use macros so you don't see the glue functions, like s(), in my example? I mean, we can always write glue functions so we can compose functions with different input/output types without using monads. What exactly are monads adding? Oh, and one more. If I were to actually use a monad in a piece of production code, what are the chances that the next person working on the code would have the faintest idea how it worked? ;-p -- 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
