Simon Marlow wrote [snip]

So the IO monad in Haskell, at least as we understand it, doesn't satisfy the monad laws (or, depending on your point of view, seq breaks the monad laws). [snip]

Cheers Simon. One of the awkward things about the Haskell events I implemented is that although I make them an instance of Monad, they don't actually satisfy left identity. Now I can say that "Yes, Event isn't really a Monad, but neither is IO". According to the report

Instances of Monad should satisfy the following laws:

return a >>= k = k a m >>= return = m m >>= (\x -> k x >>= h) = (m >>= k) >>= h so neither IO nor my events satisfy this. Up to now I haven't had any problems with this.

Does GHC or any other Haskell compiler actually rely on instances of Monad satisfying left identity? If not, I would suggest dropping the requirement, if it can be done without upsetting category theorists. (What the hell, they stole the term "Monad" from philosophy and changed its meaning, so why shouldn't we?) I presume it would not in fact be difficult to synthesise a left identity at the cost of making things slower, thus (forgive any syntax errors, I'm not going to test this). data MonadIO a = Action (IO a) | Return a instance Monad (MonadIO a) where return a = Return a (>>=) (Return a) k = k a (>>=) (Action act) f = Action (act >>= (\ a -> case f a of {Return a -> return a;Action act -> act})) (I considered doing something similar to turn Events into a real monad, but decided to choose efficiency over category theory. For events its slightly more complicated as you need to handle the choice operator as well.)