FW: RE [Haskell-cafe] Monad Description For Imperative Programmer

[David Menendez]

On 8/1/07, Jeff Polakow <jeff.polakow at db.com> wrote:
> >But what about an actual object of type 'IO
>  > Int', say?
> >
> I usually describe the type resulting from applying a monad a computation.

Same here. If "m" is a monad, then "m a" is a computation. (Of course,
computations are first-class values, like functions.) I've
occasionally called functions of type "a -> m b" monadic functions,
but I suspect that's poor style.

I wonder how much of the confusion surrounding monads comes from the
fact that using them in Haskell involves higher-order functions, type
constructors, and type constructor classes.