This is way more clean, indeed! The only thing that is bothering me a little bit is that we're ignoring the output of the State monad. Do you know if there is any alternative monad that acts just like the State but doesn't have the output?
Hmm, maybe this doesn't make sense, since the bind operator won't have a type to work on... well, I will approve the changes, but let me know if you know some way to make this work
This is way more clean, indeed! The only thing that is bothering me a little bit is that we're ignoring the output of the State monad. Do you know if there is any alternative monad that acts just like the State but doesn't have the output?