I would expand your definition of &quot;monadic&quot; to:<br>&quot;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&quot;.<br>
IMO your definition matches more &quot;applicative&quot;.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/6/18 Alexander Solla <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ajs@2piix.com">ajs@2piix.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
While we&#39;re on the topic, does anyone else get funny looks when they say &quot;monads&quot;?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Yes, almost every time.  They seem to catch on if I say &quot;monadic&quot; when I mean &quot;able to syntactically transformed so as to be put in a sequence&quot;.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>