Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen a écrit :
> But this requires the function to be designed in a clean way and
> conform to certain monadic rules, and getting it wrong creates a mess
> in the type errors.

Actually, I find the typing discipline enforced by the monadic
abstraction very helpful (and elegant).

> Now, we might as well just push a closure onto a queue instead of on
> the call stack. This avoid a lot of complexity in the function type
> design, and we get a lot more flexibility in how we dispatch the tasks
> (arguably we could do the same or possibly more, in continuation
> passing style, but it will give you a headache).

This sounds like a narrow (and C-ish) way to tackle things. The bind
operator is about composition of threads, not scheduling.

> More importantly, it is much simpler to understand a closure on a
> queue, than continuation passing style.

What you call the "call stack" is orthogonal to your "queues of
closures": one is about combining results of threaded computations
whereas the other is just spawning threads and relying on some external
mechanism to schedule them.

In other words, I think both can be used together, and achieve different
purposes.


Best regards,

-- 
Stéphane