Talk:Monad (functional programming): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:58, 24 November 2022

Revision as of 05:50, 28 November 2022

Line 163:

It makes sense to avoid Haskell-specific notation, but here the only notation used is function application written as "f x", and binary operator "f >=> g". I restored the equation, using f(x) as function application. That should be understandable without additional prerequisites. [[Special:Contributions/2001:861:3F42:1B60:AEFC:B99:1842:A29E|2001:861:3F42:1B60:AEFC:B99:1842:A29E]] ([[User talk:2001:861:3F42:1B60:AEFC:B99:1842:A29E|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 07:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Hi everyone, I'm still going to be away from Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, but I did get the ping for this conversation. I'm going to try to keep my response simple. For the specific expression about monadic composition, just like you guessed @[[user:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]], the "g(y=b)" expression is a kludge to show variable binding and application in the few cases leaving them implicit is ambiguous. It's not the cleanest way for sure, but it does allow avoiding lambda calculus as a pre-req to understand the article.

:Big picture, anyone that wants to think through & change the code has my full support. I left [[Talk:Monad_(functional_programming)/Archive_2|a lot of comments and notes in the Talk archives]] while finishing up my changes though. My main opinions are pretty much:

:* Avoid making mostly independent concepts like lambda calculus or currying pre-reqs to understand the article

:* Try to be consistent and head-off misinterpretations around things like order of evaluation

:* The "right thing to do" would probably be to hash out functional pseudo-code guidelines for Wikipedia at large

:* Barring that, I do feel math-ish notation is preferable, followed by something like an established functional language (just looser & more accessible)

:I don't expect people to read my notes (they're long), but if you are willing to, you may still want to factor in my rationale at some points. [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 05:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)