« Return to Thread: How would you call it when a value turns into a monad?
Re: How would you call it when a value turns into a monad?
by nuttycom
::
Rate this Message:
"lift" is certainly the term I've encountered most in the many monad
tutorials I've read while trying to wrap my head around the pattern.
Kris
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Meredith
Gregory<lgreg.meredith@...> wrote:
> Christos,
>
> Excellent question. Of the ones you mention, inject and embed have other
> meanings that don't work in your favor in this context. Absorb also has a
> different connotation in that the entity so absorbed doesn't necessarily
> remain intact, whereas there are a great deal of monads that have
> corresponding comonads allowing for extraction of the value previously
> "returned".
>
> The intuitions of lift and wrap are good and less unfavorably overloaded. To
> the wrap side you might add
>
> contain
> confine
> enclose
> enfold
> box
> hold
>
> To the lift side you might add
>
> reify
> represent
>
> In my experience the container metaphor has the most "juice" for many
> communication contexts, so i would go with something from the "wrap" column,
> if it were my call.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Christos KK Loverdos <loverdos@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We know that part of the definition of a monad is that nice little
>> <return> function (in Haskell terminology) that embeds a value into the
>> Monad. If you agree that <return> is not such a nice description, what else
>> can we name it?
>>
>> I am thinking of what the function does but I am not sure which of these
>> phrases might be better:
>>
>> 1. lifts a value to a monad
>> 2. wraps a value as a monad
>> 3. injects a value into a monad
>> 4. absorbs a value into a monad
>> 5. embeds ... [which I used in the opening of this email and I almost
>> forgot to enumerate
>> 6. turns ... [which is in the subject of the email and I almost forgot to
>> enumerate]
>>
>> .. and I could go on...
>>
>> As I see it there is no need for just one of them to be the winner but is
>> there any one that may capture the semantics better?
>>
>> Thoughts/Suggestions/Any Preference?
>>
>> --
>> __~O
>> -\ <, Christos KK Loverdos
>> (*)/ (*) http://ckkloverdos.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> L.G. Meredith
> Managing Partner
> Biosimilarity LLC
> 1219 NW 83rd St
> Seattle, WA 98117
>
> +1 206.650.3740
>
> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com
>
tutorials I've read while trying to wrap my head around the pattern.
Kris
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Meredith
Gregory<lgreg.meredith@...> wrote:
> Christos,
>
> Excellent question. Of the ones you mention, inject and embed have other
> meanings that don't work in your favor in this context. Absorb also has a
> different connotation in that the entity so absorbed doesn't necessarily
> remain intact, whereas there are a great deal of monads that have
> corresponding comonads allowing for extraction of the value previously
> "returned".
>
> The intuitions of lift and wrap are good and less unfavorably overloaded. To
> the wrap side you might add
>
> contain
> confine
> enclose
> enfold
> box
> hold
>
> To the lift side you might add
>
> reify
> represent
>
> In my experience the container metaphor has the most "juice" for many
> communication contexts, so i would go with something from the "wrap" column,
> if it were my call.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Christos KK Loverdos <loverdos@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We know that part of the definition of a monad is that nice little
>> <return> function (in Haskell terminology) that embeds a value into the
>> Monad. If you agree that <return> is not such a nice description, what else
>> can we name it?
>>
>> I am thinking of what the function does but I am not sure which of these
>> phrases might be better:
>>
>> 1. lifts a value to a monad
>> 2. wraps a value as a monad
>> 3. injects a value into a monad
>> 4. absorbs a value into a monad
>> 5. embeds ... [which I used in the opening of this email and I almost
>> forgot to enumerate
>> 6. turns ... [which is in the subject of the email and I almost forgot to
>> enumerate]
>>
>> .. and I could go on...
>>
>> As I see it there is no need for just one of them to be the winner but is
>> there any one that may capture the semantics better?
>>
>> Thoughts/Suggestions/Any Preference?
>>
>> --
>> __~O
>> -\ <, Christos KK Loverdos
>> (*)/ (*) http://ckkloverdos.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> L.G. Meredith
> Managing Partner
> Biosimilarity LLC
> 1219 NW 83rd St
> Seattle, WA 98117
>
> +1 206.650.3740
>
> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com
>
« Return to Thread: How would you call it when a value turns into a monad?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
