Re:Are Monads a Waste of Time?
by tree_of_item on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @01:21PM
(#16422544)
It's in the signature. `b` has a causal dependency on `a` because `a` is on the left hand side of the arrow and `b` is on the right hand side of the arrow. That's it. Functional programming 101. There's no way around this.
The operational semantics and details of thunks are not relevant here. Tricks with `undefined` are not relevant here. This is just the meaning of the arrow type.
If that were true, why do you need a monad for sequencing? Why doesn’t function composition suffice, or something of the form a -> (a -> b) -> b?
Re:Are Monads a Waste of Time?
by tree_of_item on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @02:57PM
(#16423596)
Because the values have extra "stuff" surrounding them. That's why it's `m a` and not just `a`: the `m` holds the invisible context that enriches the `a`.
Although your example is exactly what's happening in the identity monad, because there is no extra stuff.
You most certainly do not! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16420742