Re: [Caml-list] functional or imperative feature ?

[Kristopher Micinski <krismicinski@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1176 bytes --]

Thanks for pointing out this exposition, Oleg.  I had never thought of the
connection between monads and Landin's earlier paper.  However, I do
remember Appel's CPS book saying something to the effect of lambda being
the prototypical let, and this was further described to me by Michael Hicks
when he was doing his work on monadic programming for ML: in which ML is
"lifted" to the proper monad for the job.

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=151802

Interesting history however, your pages are quite useful!


Kris
On Jul 22, 2013 8:16 PM, <oleg@okmij.org> wrote:

>
> > The purest way to view it is that after desugaring, sequenced
> > statements turn into lambdas, which turn into (morally) binds from the
> > IO monad.  The observation is that when writing in ML, you are
> > implicitly writing in the IO monad.
>
> Peter Landin has described this process already in 1965. See the exact
> quotation from his paper (the ()-passing trick) in
>         http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/IO-monad-history.html
> (as well a few comments). That Peter Landin's paper also described
> State and Writer monads, streams and delayed evaluation and even
> stream fusion.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1759 bytes --]