Re: [Haskell-cafe] A question about "monad laws"

G'day all. Quoting askyle :

So you're either not taking (>=>) as primitive or you're stating the additional property that there exists (>>=) such that f >=> g === (>>= g) . f (from which you can easily show that (f . g) >=> h === (f >=> h) . g ).

If you wanted to prove that bind is natural, you would need to define bind, no? Cheers, Andrew Bromage