Yves Parès
But still, I maintain my previous view. I could clarify that by saying that (e.g. for Maybe) we could separate it in two types, Maybe itself and its monad:
-- The plain Maybe type data Maybe a = Just a | Nothing
-- The MaybeMonad newtype MaybeMonad a = MM ( () -> Maybe a )
That's what using Maybe as a monad semantically means, doesn't it?
That's a statement like "the sky is blue". You can represent any value as a function of (). You are saying that every integer is a function. newtype MyInt = MyInt (() -> Int) newtype My a = My (() -> a) Think of it this way: There is something like a canonical representation of every monad. If you let that one be the one with the least order (which is reasonable), then no, not every monad's canonical representation is a function, because the base library definition of Maybe is the canonical one (order zero). In that sense every value in maths is a function. In other words: Your extension of everything (!) to functions is redundant. You get the idea. Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://ertes.de/