Dan Piponi wrote:
On 7/2/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What were monads like before they became a Haskell language construct?
Is Haskell's idea of a "monad" actually anywhere close to the original
mathematical formalism?
It's as close to a mathematician's notion of a monad as Haskell's
types and functions are to the objects and arrows of category theory.
Right. So it's a pretty close correspondence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_%28category_theory%29
"Monads are important in the theory of pairs of adjoint functors. They
can be viewed as monoid objects in a category of endofunctors (hence the
name) and they generalize closure operators on posets to arbitrary
categories."
*cried softly in the corner*
I knew asking questions about theoretical mathematics probably wasn't a
good idea...
Knowing that you were about to ask this question I told my past self
by tachyon express and wrote up on it this weekend:
http://sigfpe.blogspot.com/2007/06/monads-from-algebra-and-the-gray-code.html
Heh. *I* would have just told my past self next week's lottery numbers...
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
