Content deleted Content added
→Permutation?: Reply |
First paragraph needs a lot of help for first-timers. There's too much jargon and unspecified syntax. |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
}}
{{FAQ}}
{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
Line 94 ⟶ 95:
So I just cut any mention of the permutations from the table for now. I also consolidated the table layout a bit, but noted the combinatoric properties (so the potential symmetry I mentioned is still implied). If you think it needs more work though or that it should be cut, you should probably go for it. This article definitely needs more attention to the technical details. -- [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Leaving only the relatively obvious varieties makes sense. About the additional columns, I personally see them redundant but having both perhaps helps readers less familiar
::You're right, the new columns are redundant for anyone that knows the mathematical definitions or can understand the linked articles. But that can be a good thing for new readers.
::Thank you too for talking through it with me; it was kind of fun. Maybe I should get over my bad feelings from university and go back to grad school someday. -- [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 02:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
== Rust example ==
Line 111 ⟶ 114:
:* Referring to the Haskell wiki pages is definitely less than ideal, but the talk page already saw a lot of back-and-forth on moving away from Haskell more. I think the core issue is that while we can do examples in other languages, we don't have a better idiom than Haskell-ish terms and pseudocode for explaining the actual concepts. A lot of the historical record out there on using monads is based in Haskell too. Even if it's still Haskell-centric, another harder reference (like a book) might be a good first step. At least that gets us away from citing Haskell's community wiki.
:Like I said, I can't dedicate much time to this article going forward, but if you think I can help somehow, feel free to ping me. -- [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== Confusing Introduction ==
The first paragraph refers to two ''operations'': "return : <A>(a : A) -> M(A)" and "bind : <A,B>(m_a : M(A), f : A -> M(B)) -> M(B)". The notation is not explained nor is there a link to a resource to understand them. There is a slight attempt to explain them with "which lifts a value into the monadic context" and "which chains monadic computations", but in introducing the idea of monads — which I'm still trying to understand — such things only serve to confuse. For example, what's a ''monadic context'' and why must a value be ''lifted'' into that context?
That same paragraph purports to provide a simpler explanation via, "In simpler terms, monads can be thought of as interfaces implemented on type constructors, that allow for functions to abstract over various type constructor variants that implement monad." However, I have no idea what a type constructor is, how functions can ''abstract over various type constructor variants'', or what it means for such type constructors to "implement monad", so how does any of that jargon help me figure out what a monad is?
[[Special:Contributions/141.162.102.57|141.162.102.57]] ([[User talk:141.162.102.57|talk]]) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||