3 ms·
That's like saying "your program is more elegant if it has no monads". It's an incorrect statement. The monadic version is perfectly elegant. Even better: it's
by davdar 12y ago
That's like saying "your program is more elegant if it has no monads". It's an incorrect statement. The monadic version is perfectly elegant. Even better: it's the right one.
- jules 12y agoBy the same logic scanl should just have the type: (b -> IO a) -> [b] -> IO [a] instead of (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> [a] Just putting the whole thing in the IO/ST monad isn't the right solution when you need a very specific form of local state.