Oops, sent this off list the first time, here it is again. Jake McArthur <[email protected]> writes: > [email protected] wrote: > | Bind is a sequencing operator rather than an application operator. > > In my opinion, this is a common misconception. I think that bind would > be nicer if its arguments were reversed.
If this is a misconception, why does thinking of it this way work so well? This idea is reinforced by the do notation syntactic sugar: bind can be represented by going into imperative land and "do"ing one thing before another. The fact that `x' may not actually have to happen before `f' is merely the typical sort of optimization we do in compilers for imperative languages: instructions that do not modify non-local state can be re-ordered, but IO cannot because it jumps elsewhere, no? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
