3 ms·
> You are effectively saying you cant define anything unless you include every case, which is clearly nonsense. No I'm not. I will repeat what I said again: su
by bowsamic 3y ago
> You are effectively saying you cant define anything unless you include every case, which is clearly nonsense.
No I'm not. I will repeat what I said again: such things are defined by their general mathematical definition, and any analogy can only speak for certain subsets of examples of that definition.
> The transform is "transform the wrapped properties into some IO call", and all transforms are explicitly sequential.
How exactly does the mathematical definition of a monad say anything about "transforms"?
I think you didn't actually read my comment.
- supermatt 3y ago> How exactly does the mathematical definition of a monad say anything about "transforms"? Im not sure that it does, but a "transform" as I mean it in my basic description is applying an operation to the "wrapped" properties.
- bowsamic 3y agoThe transformation mentioned there has nothing to do with using the bind operator within a monad. An example of a natural transformation would be transforming from one monad to another monad
- uxp8u61q 3y agoThe word "transformation" in that name has absolutely nothing to do with your use of the word "transform" ("transform the wrapped properties into some IO call"). MacLane could have decide to call natural transformations "widgets". My point is, besides the name (which is completely arbitrary), why would you even begin to believe this has something to do with "transforming properties into IO calls"? Nice shadow edit. For context, the previous comment used to consist of a single link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_transformation
- bowsamic 3y agoYeah to be honest it's kind of a red flag given the context to see a random term misappropriated in such a way
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]