[bug#61214] [PATCH guix-artwork] website: posts: Add Dissecting Guix, Part 2: The Store Monad.

["宋文武 via Guix-patches via" <guix-patches@gnu.org>]

Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com> writes:

>> And to pass this initial state, we used `run-with-state`.  The equivalent for working with
>> the store is our old friend `run-with-store`!
>
> For my poor English, I do not understand this well, does this mean
> "run-with-store will call run-with-state, we just use run-with-store
> generally." or "run-with-store is similer with run-with-state, they can
> replace each other"?

Well, "The equivalent for working with the store ..." should read as
"And to pass this initial store, we should use `run-with-store`".

> We can see that this `gexp->derivation` returns a procedure taking the
> initial state (store), just like our `%state-monad` procedures did.
> And to pass this initial state, we used `run-with-state`.

Maybe "And to pass the initial state for `%state-monad`, we used
`run-with-state`.  So to pass the initial for `%store-monad`, we will
use `run-with-store`!" is better?