Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 Sep 27, at 12:41, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm not sure how that qualifies set as "not really a true monad anyway" - but then, I don't know what a monad is, originally. I only know what it means in Haskell.
I think you read him backwards: Map and Set are category-theory ("true") monads, but they can't be Haskell Monads because Haskell isn't expressive enough to represent more than a subset of category-theoretical monads.
Ah, OK. That makes more sense then... What (if anything) do we do about that? I'm not actually bothered about every possible monad being representable as such in Haskell. I'd just like Set to work. ;-)
Also... Who or what is an Oleg, and why do I keep hearing about it? ;-)
Oleg Kiselyov. http://okmij.org/ftp/ He's somewhat legendary in the Haskell community for his ability to make Haskell do what people think it can't, and his tendency to program at the type level instead of at the value level like most people. :)
Ah - so the "Prolog programs as type signatures" thing is *his* fault?! ;-)