[Haskell-cafe] A question about "monad laws"

[ajb at spamcop.net]

G'day all.

Quoting askyle <valgarv at gmx.net>:

> So you're either not taking (>=>) as primitive or you're stating the
> additional
> property that there exists (>>=) such that f >=> g  === (>>= g) . f
> (from which you can easily show that (f . g) >=> h === (f >=> h) . g ).

If you wanted to prove that bind is natural, you would need to define
bind, no?

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage