[Haskell-cafe] Re: evaluation semantics of bind

[Jake McArthur]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

mail at justinbogner.com wrote:
| Oops, sent this off list the first time, here it is again.
|
| Jake McArthur <jake at pikewerks.com> writes:
|> mail at justinbogner.com 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-----