3 ms·
You wouldn't have to say "Oh, you forgot to declare a way to apply the greater than-greater-than-equal operator!", you would say "Oh, you forgot to declare a wa
by codygman 13y ago
You wouldn't have to say "Oh, you forgot to declare a way to apply the greater than-greater-than-equal operator!", you would say "Oh, you forgot to declare a way to apply the bind operator!". Now that you know that, you can stop saying that ">>=" doesn't have a name? You are upsetting poor bind :/
Also here is a great explanation with pictures that helped me understand it:
http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_monads_in_pictures.html#monads http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_...
- jkrems 13y agoThanks! That article is pretty awesome. It would slightly more awesome if it would use the analogies "bind"/"feed"/"chain" that apparently are more often used to speak about it. But I could consider calling it the "shove" operator from now on. ;)
- codygman 13y agoHey no problem! I used to see Haskell as needlessly complex, unapproachable, and not usable in the real world and now realize that was a mistake, so I just try to show people what I've found out/learned when i can :)