From 2f6e770665caa164a2c608417954b24359b10f56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Pryor Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:15:52 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] why monads? Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- state_monad_tutorial.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/state_monad_tutorial.mdwn b/state_monad_tutorial.mdwn index 3add9bd2..d878edca 100644 --- a/state_monad_tutorial.mdwn +++ b/state_monad_tutorial.mdwn @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ or, using pattern-matching on the record (you don't have to specify every field let { total = value; _ } = s0 in (value, { total = s0.total + 2; modifications = s0.modifications + 2};; -But **the point of learning how to do this monadically** is that (1) monads show us how to embed more sophisticated programming techniques, such as imperative state and continuations, into frameworks that don't natively possess them (such as the set-theoretic metalanguage of Groenendijk, Stokhof and Veltman's paper); and (2) monads are delicious. +But **the point of learning how to do this monadically** is that (1) monads show us how to embed more sophisticated programming techniques, such as imperative state and continuations, into frameworks that don't natively possess them (such as the set-theoretic metalanguage of Groenendijk, Stokhof and Veltman's paper); (2) becoming familiar with monads will enable you to see patterns you'd otherwise miss, and implement some seemingly complex computations using the same simple patterns (same-fringe is an example); and finally, of course (3) monads are delicious. Keep in mind that the final result of a bind chain doesn't have to be the same type as the starting value: -- 2.11.0