Luke Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Andrew Coppin
<andrewcop...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Have I just invented arrows?
No... you have a data type which is *an* Arrow (probably/almost).
Well, OK, that's kind of what I meant. ;-)
The
pure implementation bugs me because of its use of undefined. Might
still be okay though. I would be more comfortable if it could not
output until it has *some* input;
Yes, this irritates me also.
i.e.
data Property' a b = forall s. Property' s (a -> s -> (b,s))
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. I will work though the consequences and
see what happens...
Anyway, for yours: try to implement (.) :: Property b c -> Property a
b -> Property a c, and first :: Property a b -> Property (a,c) (b,c).
Then you will have an arrow.
(.) = flip (>==>)
first p = p >==< pure id
This is a Causal Commutative Arrow, even, similar to the kinds of
things that are done in Yampa. It might be more recognizable as the
non-recursive version of:
newtype Property a b = Property b (a -> Property a b)
...OK, I'm lost...
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
