-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [email protected] wrote: | 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.
An imperative-looking notation does not make something imperative. Thinking of bind as sequencing really *doesn't* work very well. What does bind have to do with sequencing at all in the list monad, for example? What about the reader monad? - - Jake -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmLJYQACgkQye5hVyvIUKlGmACeJTP/Oj7F0tuoN+CdrzJeZ/fU AXgAn3Z5E1X1GDs96BgmHeqqEVVh0FSW =Zt4V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
