On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are right, I have revised my position. I am now suggesting that a > datatype be used to represent the actual point that a call happens. As in: > > f :: a -> b -> Eff e c > > Note although Eff looks like a monad, and happens to have the semantics of > a monad, this is an emergent property, you don't have to generalise it into > a monad :-) > :-) OK. First, I agree that some variant of this works. But it appears to me that this is equivalent to introducing a second arrow type, which might (perhaps) be written as: f :: a -> b -=-> c And if that's what we're doing, then it seems to me that all we have accomplished is to encode the arity using a different syntax than the one that I originally proposed. Incidentally, those "accumulating" arrows *do* have effects! They cause allocation! shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
