19 Jun
2010
19 Jun
'10
9:08 a.m.
I would expand your definition of "monadic" to:
"able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence where an
operation can be altered by the results of the operations preceeding it".
IMO your definition matches more "applicative".
2010/6/18 Alexander Solla
On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
While we're on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they say
"monads"?
Yes, almost every time. They seem to catch on if I say "monadic" when I mean "able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence".
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe