Expressing do block using only monadic bind syntax

by

Yes, all of them can be converted to bind syntax; in fact, they are converted internally by the compiler.

I hope this translation of your example gives you the hint:

main = readFile "foo.txt" >>= \f ->
       (print $ "prefix " ++ f) >>
       (print $ f ++ " postfix")

More Related Contents:

  1. Should do-notation be avoided in Haskell?
  2. What is a monad?
  3. Monads with Join() instead of Bind()
  4. Operating on a return from a Maybe that contains “Just”
  5. A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what’s the problem?
  6. Is monad bind (>>=) operator closer to function composition (chaining) or function application?
  7. Using return vs. not using return in the list monad
  8. How to extract value from monadic action
  9. What indentation is required for a case statement within a let statement?
  10. Large-scale design in Haskell? [closed]
  11. What is the purpose of the reader monad?
  12. Is Haskell truly pure (is any language that deals with input and output outside the system)?
  13. Euler 43 – is there a monad to help write this list comprehension?
  14. Haskell: I/O and Returning From a Function
  15. Why does haskell’s bind function take a function from non-monadic to monadic
  16. In Haskell, when do we use in with let?
  17. Difference between Monad and Applicative in Haskell
  18. Defining a new monad in haskell raises no instance for Applicative
  19. What is a monad?
  20. Is there a way to place some impure code inside pure functions?
  21. What are free monads?
  22. Why are side-effects modeled as monads in Haskell?
  23. How to interpret bind/>>= of the function instance?
  24. Is there a monad that doesn’t have a corresponding monad transformer (except IO)?
  25. Why should Applicative be a superclass of Monad?
  26. How to handle side effect with Applicative?
  27. How to return a pure value from a impure method
  28. In what sense is the IO Monad pure?
  29. How Monads are considered pure?
  30. Is Haskell’s mapM not lazy?

Leave a Comment