[Haskell-cafe] Confusion on the third monad law when using lambda abstractions

[Hans van Thiel]

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:26 -0500, Jake McArthur wrote:
> Jon Strait wrote:
> > I'm reading the third (bind associativity) law for monads in this form:
> > 
> > m >>= (\x -> k x >>= h)  =  (m >>= k) >>= h
> 
> Arguably, that law would be better stated as:
> 
>      (h <=< k) <=< m  =  h <=< (k <=< m)
> 
> This wouldn't be so unintuitive.
Hi, 
The only place I've ever seen Kleisli composition, or its flip, used is
in demonstrating the monad laws. Yet it is so elegant and, even having
its own name, it must have some practical use. Do you, or anybody else,
have some pointers?

Best Regards,

Hans van Thiel
> 
> - Jake
>