I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Say I have something like that, then what's the difference between saying: f = do { action1; action2; action3 } and simply f = do action3 ? If the result of each of the actions is ignored for the following ones, why do we need to do this monadically? -- Hal Daume III "Computer science is no more about computers | hdaume@isi.edu than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Andre W B Furtado wrote:
Roughly speaking, I'm in need of a monad (say MyIO) that interprets the following code
f :: MyIO () f = do action1 action2 action3 ... return ()
as applying action1 to g, then action2 to the SAME g (not the result of action1) and so on...
Of course, this "g" will be specified when starting the monad (something like "runMyIO g"). Does this "composition monad" already exist? If no, can anyone give me some hints to create my own?
Thanks a lot -- Andre
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell