Not really, but monad can be a bit tricky at first.
Your first email was a namespace related problem, that has little to
do with monads.
But it can be better to start with other part of clojure and come back
to monads later.
They can be useful to refactor code or write a nicer program, but you
c
So actually it looks like I need to understand type theory to
understand this.
Thanks,
Mohan
On Sep 7, 7:04 pm, Nicolas Oury wrote:
> > ...and report your findings here or blog somewhere if you don't mind
> > :) I've been reading a lot about monads lately and can't get my head
> > around it yet
Monads are mostly used because they are necessary in Haskell. In
Clojure the urgent need is not there. However, you can sure get some
cleaner and/or more composable code if you use monads in your
advantage.
2010/9/7 Jacek Laskowski :
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nicolas Oury wrote:
>
>> Hope
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nicolas Oury wrote:
> Hope that helps.
It did. Thanks. Would you share some examples of its use in Clojure
apps? I'd love seeing more examples where a monad-based solution is
contrasted/compared to its more traditional, common approach. I wonder
why monads are not
> ...and report your findings here or blog somewhere if you don't mind
> :) I've been reading a lot about monads lately and can't get my head
> around it yet so any help appreciated (I'm coming from Java and
> Clojure is my first real functional language - that's why it causes
> headaches, I believ
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:13 PM, MohanR wrote:
> Maybe I should not read about monads first.
...and report your findings here or blog somewhere if you don't mind
:) I've been reading a lot about monads lately and can't get my head
around it yet so any help appreciated (I'm coming from Java and
Cl
http://clojure.org/namespaces
You should require clojure.contrib.monad and bot use it.
(ns my-namespace
(:require (clojure.contrib.monad :as m))
m/m-bind, for example.
Then you can define your own m-bind without conflict with an existing one.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM, MohanR wrote:
> j
