On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM,
<roconnor@theorem.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, <roconnor@theorem.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
In my completion monad, "join" is more efficent than "bind id"
This suggests that your monad will work less efficiently if you use it with the do-notation.
I am not familiar with your monad but if you are not making essential use of "bind" (or join and fmap together), then perhaps the monadic structure is not particularly important?
Join and bind are very similar and, at least in standard Haskell code, I think that "bind" has proven to be a lot
more useful then "join".
AFAIU, In applicative style programming "join" has proven to be a lot more useful than "bind".
I am not sure what you mean here, I find the "do" notation quite useful.
Also, as I mentioned before, if people find "join" easier to define then "bind", then they can define "join", and
then define "bind" in terms of that---I am still not convinced that we need a new method added to the Monad class.
If people find "bind" easier to define "join", then they can define "bind", and then define "join" in terms of that---Your argument is totally symetric in the terms "bind" and "join".
The situation is not symmetric because we already have a class with ">>=" and lots of code which depends on it---so I don't think that replacing ">>=" with "join" is really plausible (I would certainly not support such a change). I am not convinced that adding "join" to the class, in addition to ">>=", buys us anything but complexity.
-Iavor