[Haskell-cafe] Linguistic hair-splitting

[Daniel Peebles]

The list type constructor ([] :: * -> *) is a functor, and if you add the
implementations of join/return (or just return and bind) those together make
the monad. The value-level list [3,5,8] is just a list :)

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrew Coppin
<andrewcoppin at btinternet.com>wrote:

> Here's one for you to ponder.
>
> 7 is a number. 7 is an integer, and integers are numbers.
>
> 7 is not a field. 7 is an element of [at least one] field, but 7 itself is
> not a field.
>
> 7 is not a group. 7 is a member of the set of integers, but the set of
> integers is not a group either. The set of integers form a group when taken
> together with the addition operator. (And, actually, forms another,
> different, group when taken with the multiplication operator.)
>
> Now, here's the question: Is is correct to say that [3, 5, 8] is a monad?
> Is it correct to say that lists are a monad? Or would it be more correct to
> say that lists "form" a monad?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20100127/b4dcc185/attachment.html