On re-reading, I would drop the constraint "If you agree that <return>
is not such a nice description". Actually it might be.
On Jun 23, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Christos KK 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>
>
>
>
>
--
__~O
-\ <, Christos KK Loverdos
(*)/ (*)
http://ckkloverdos.com
