>>46
2) I'm talking about how monads seem to be a gathering point for strange behaviors that (presumably) can't be implemented in the language itself, and whatever Haskell code may represent them is replaced by internal functions at compile time.
3) That's been my experience when a program I'm trying to write gets too tangled among the standard monads. Even when GHC accepts the code, the runtime crashes on it.
If you're looking for it to mean more than that, you're either trolling, crazy, or trying to drive yourself crazy.
Or I've read basically anything ever written promoting/teaching Haskell, wherein so-called “monadic behavior” is touted as a major defining aspect of the language (rather than “hey I thought of a way to rearrange that function”) and the monads themselves are giant shadowy beasts of which we must never speak.
>>48
Thanks.