Re:Are Monads a Waste of Time?
by pdpi on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @01:56PM
(#16422912)
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?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.