[Haskell-cafe] Confusion on the third monad law when using lambda
abstractions
Jake McArthur
jake.mcarthur at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 14:35:20 EDT 2009
Hans van Thiel wrote:
> Just to show I'm paying attention, there's an arrow missing, right?
> (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
Correct. I noticed that after I sent it but I figured that it would be
noticed.
I also used (>>>) where I meant (>=>) at the bottom. They are
semantically the same, of course, but (>>>) requires the Kleisli newtype. :(
> Many thanks, also to the others who've replied. I've wondered about
> (=<<) usage for a long time too, and this is all very illuminating. I'll
> work this through and put it in my monad tutorial, if I may (without
> implicating you guys in any way, of course, unless you insist...)
You're welcome. I do not insist on anything either way. ;)
- Jake
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list