It's a "programmable semicolon" or "decorated-function composition". I think most people that are confused about it, are trying to make it be more meaningful than it is. Haskell (?) just grabbed a math name so they'd have one word for it, because it's a useful class name there.
@mEEGal @ZILtoid1991 Honestly, the best way I've found to understand monads (if we're talking Haskell) is to look at the type signatures of its functions. Understanding return, (>>=), and (>>) will essentially tell you everything you need to know.
mEEGal
in reply to ZILtoid1991 • • •bss03
in reply to mEEGal • • •blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-co…
It's a "programmable semicolon" or "decorated-function composition". I think most people that are confused about it, are trying to make it be more meaningful than it is. Haskell (?) just grabbed a math name so they'd have one word for it, because it's a useful class name there.
A Neighborhood of Infinity: You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)
blog.sigfpe.comJonathan Lamothe
in reply to mEEGal • •return,(>>=), and(>>)will essentially tell you everything you need to know.