zlacker

The Cont monad in Haskell is only for single continuation targets and can't do branching/unification like Rama. That kind of behavior doesn't seem like it would express naturally or efficiently with just "do".

>>nathan+(OP)
Yes, Rama probably isn’t semantically comparable to one single monad.

I was talking about the do notation as a way to sugar the syntax of cps monadic operations into a flat, imperative syntax. This is exactly what Rama is doing.

If you look at a tutorial of what haskell do-notations desugar into, you’ll find the same cps stuff described in this article.

>>nathan+(OP)
Could you say more about what branching/unification is in this context, and how Rama supports/uses it?

>>tome+jJ
Those are explained in the post starting here: https://blog.redplanetlabs.com/2024/10/10/rama-on-clojures-t...