X-Git-Url: https://git.stderr.nl/gitweb?p=matthijs%2Fmaster-project%2Freport.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=Chapters%2FFuture.tex;h=38d618ff89906090885a9f359ee97e36dfbfc193;hp=4eb297d7e9c3d2b357942bfec82359017a263699;hb=19c17205efa182b80916caa31afeadad9d2dd5b5;hpb=6b45e9cc13a588fe45096dfa9e8b54c606ed3c32

diff --git a/Chapters/Future.tex b/Chapters/Future.tex
index 4eb297d..38d618f 100644
--- a/Chapters/Future.tex
+++ b/Chapters/Future.tex
@@ -47,13 +47,40 @@ will be desugared into:
 (somefunc a) >> (otherfunc b)
 \stophaskell
 
-\todo{Properly introduce >>=}
-There is also the \hs{>>=} operator, which allows for passing variables from
-one expression to the next. If we could use this notation to compose a
-stateful computation from a number of other stateful functions, this could
-move all the boilerplate code into the \hs{>>} operator. Perhaps the compiler
-should be taught to always inline the \hs{>>} operator, but after that there
-should be no further changes required to the compiler.
+The main reason to have the monadic notation, is to be able to wrap
+results of functions in a datatype (the \emph{monad}) that can contain
+extra information, and hide extra behaviour in the binding operators.
+
+The \hs{>>=} operator allows extracting the actual result of a function
+and passing it to another function. Let's try to illustrate this from an
+example. The following snippet:
+
+\starthaskell
+do
+  x <- somefunc a
+  otherfunc x
+\stophaskell
+
+will be desugared into:
+
+\starthaskell
+(somefunc a) >>= (\\x -> otherfunc x)
+\stophaskell
+
+The \hs{\\x -> ...} notation creates a lambda abstraction in Haskell,
+that binds the \hs{x} variable. Here, the \hs{>>=} operator is supposed
+to extract whatever result somefunc has and pass it to the lambda
+expression created. This will probably not make the monadic notation
+completely clear to a reader without prior experience with Haskell, but
+it should serve to understand the following discussion.
+
+The monadic notation could perhaps be used to compose a number of
+stateful functions into another stateful computation. Perhaps this could
+move all the boilerplate code into the \hs{>>} and \hs{>>=} operators.
+Because the boilerplate is still there (it's not magically disappeared,
+just moved into these functions), the compiler should still be able to compile
+these descriptions without any special magic (though perhaps it should
+always inline the binding operators to reveal the flow of values).
 
 This is highlights an important aspect of using a functional language for our
 descriptions: We can use the language itself to provide abstractions of common