On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Dan Doel <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm uncertain where this, "compositional means written as the > composition of functions," thing started. But it is not what I, and > I'm sure any others mean by the term, "compositional."
You're right. It's a rather recent, as far as I can tell, overloading of the word that I inadvertently picked up. The meaning of this overloading, at least as I understand and intended it, is that it forms a category. I will try to avoid this use of the word in the future. > For three, I can't for the life of me think of how anyone would write > (>=>) as a primitive operation _except_ for writing (>>=) and then '(f >>=> g) x = f x >>= g'. The function cannot be inspected to get the > result except by applying it. This is a good point. > I'd be down with putting join in the class, but that tends to not be > terribly important for most cases, either. Join is not the most important, but I do think it's often easier to define than bind. I often find myself implementing bind by explicitly using join. - Jake _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
