Oops, I was misreading. You have `e` here as the next monad.
In any case, I think the monad identity concept messed up. The property:
return x >>= f = f x
Logically only has meaning when `=` applies to values in the domain. `undefined` is not a value in the domain.
We can define monads - which meet monad laws - even in strict languages.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Barbour
<dmbarbour@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Menendez
<dave@zednenem.com> wrote:
The Eval monad has the property: return undefined >>= const e = e.
You can't write `const e` in the Eval monad.
>From what I can tell, your proposed monads do not.
You can't write `const e` as my proposed monad, either.
Regards,
Dave