[Haskell-cafe] Bind as a sequencing operator (Was: evaluation semantics of bind)

[mail at justinbogner.com]

Jake McArthur <jake at pikewerks.com> writes:
> 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

What doesn't bind have to do with sequencing in the list monad?
Consider:

  [1..2] >>=