prefers to say that monads are monads.
The closest we will come to metaphorical talk is to suggest that
-monadic types place objects inside of boxes, and that monads wrap and
-unwrap boxes to expose or enclose the objects inside of them. In any
-case, the emphasis will be on starting with the abstract structure of
-monads, followed by instances of monads from the philosophical and
+monadic types place objects inside of *boxes*, and that monads wrap
+and unwrap boxes to expose or enclose the objects inside of them. In
+any case, the emphasis will be on starting with the abstract structure
+of monads, followed by instances of monads from the philosophical and
linguistics literature.
-<table border=2>x</table>
+### Boxes: type expressions with one free type variable
+
+Recall that we've been using lower-case Greek letters
+<code>α, β, γ, ...</code> to represent types. We'll
+use `P`, `Q`, `R`, and `S` as metavariables over type schemas, where a
+type schema is a type expression that may or may not contain unbound
+type variables. For instance, we might have
+
+ P ≡ Int
+ P ≡ α -> α
+ P ≡ ∀α. α -> α
+ P ≡ ∀α. α -> β
+
+etc.
+
+A box type will be a type expression that contains exactly one free
+type variable. Some examples (using OCaml's type conventions):
+
+ α Maybe
+ α List
+ (α, P) Tree (assuming P contains no free type variables)
+ (α, α) Tree
+
+The idea is that whatever type the free type variable α might be,
+the boxed type will be a box that "contains" an object of type α.
+For instance, if `α List` is our box type, and α is the basic type
+Int, then in this context, `Int List` is the type of a boxed integer.
+
+We'll often write box types as a box containing the value of the free
+type variable. So if our box type is `α List`, and `α == Int`, we
+would write
+
- <code><table border>Int</table></code>
-
++<table border>Int</table>
+