On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 14:17 , Donn Cave wrote:
Sure. It isn't a lot of code, so I subjected it to Either-ization as an experiment, and I did indeed take the monad procedural route.
Monad != procedural, unless you insist on do notation. Think of it as composition (it may be easier to use (=<<) which "points the same direction" as (.)).
Yes, I insist on do notation, because it provides a convenient binding form that works with what I'm doing - the original functional variation wasn't so suited to composition either, and used `let'. But I see that as only syntactic - equally procedural, either way. Expressions are evaluated in a fixed order, so seems inherently procedural to me and `do' is only a notational convenience. Donn Cave, donn@avvanta.com