[Haskell-cafe] >> and sequencing [newbie]

[David Powers]

Like point free notation, I worry about what somebody somewhere is doing to
it.... :)

The existence of a well understood community standard (add a type signature
to your functions and only use monad operators with the laws) helps a lot -
but both pieces are optional.  I suppose the shorter and more declarative
nature of Haskell functions makes it a less urgent point though.


On 4/16/07, Donald Bruce Stewart <dons at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> clifford.beshers:
> >
> >    Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> >
> > david:
> >
> >
> >    Ah... so the secret is in the hidden variables.  On some
> >    level I am beginning to fear that Monads resurrect some of
> >    the scariest aspects of method overriding from my OO
> >    programming days.  Do you (all) ever find that the ever
> >    changing nature of >>= makes code hard to read?
> >
> >
> > You always know which monad you're in though, since its in the type.
> > And the scary monads aren't terribly common anyway.
> >
> >
> >    Also, the monad laws impose a level of sanity that most OO
> >    frameworks do not, right?
>
> Ah yes, and we have the 3 laws of monads. If you break these , the monad
> police will come and lock you up.
>
> -- Don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20070417/afe2a1c2/attachment.htm