On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Rich Neswold wrote: > >> (I realize that making this context a monad is a legitimate solution. >> However, until I see the Ocaml community including monads in the standard >> library, I think I'll stick with idiomatic Ocaml. I'd also like to solve >> this functionally, so I'm discounting the use of objects. Sorry for these >> constraints!) >> > > I don't know that monads solve your problem here, but monads are a > perfectly reasonable idiom in OCaml. You won't find them in the standard > library because the standard library is very conservative. But you will > find them in Jane Street's Core library, and we use them reasonably often. > I think there's no reason to avoid monads in OCaml (although obviously > there's not much to be gained by using them for vanilla effects, as is done > in Haskell.) > I've used monads in Haskell to "hide" a parameter, so I may be able to do the same for this case. Since I think I'm also going to use the Lwt library, which is monadic, I wouldn't be setting the precedent. Thanks, I'll also look into adding Jane Street's Core library to my installation. -- Rich Google Reader: https://www.google.com/reader/shared/rich.neswold Jabber ID: rich@neswold.homeunix.net