to clarify: having bind would be equivalent to having arr for the purposes of my question (assuming its the standard monadic bind).
having arr :: (b -> c) -> a b c is tantamount to assuming that any haskell function can be embedded in an arrow instance which prevents a lot of interesting deep embedding uses of the Arrow abstraction/ or at least makes it a bit tricker. (eg things like writing circuits or certain types of compiled FRP models). On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> wrote: > > FYI it's #7828, not #7282. > Of course, yes. > > > would making arrow remindable involve dropping the arr == haksell > functions assumption or doing > > something that would allow generalized arrows? > Not sure if I fully understand what you mean. There's an idea to give up > on current desugaring > that heavily uses arr, >>> etc. in favor of desugaring based on bind > equivalents for arrows. Is > this what you wanted to know? There's some discussion on the Trac you > might want to follow. > > Janek > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
