On 27-Jan-1999, Michael Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ross Paterson wrote:
> >
> > John Hughes has defined a new abstract view of computation, in his
> > (currently draft) paper "Generalising Monads to Arrows", at
> >
> > http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/arrows.ps
>
> Has anyone else read this paper? I'm interested in hearing comments, if
> only to point out some things that I may have missed. I'll admit, I
> haven't read the entire paper. I gave up after the 16th page, because it
> was so conceptually unwieldy. It's not that I had difficulty
> understanding how the system works, it's just that I found it difficult
> to believe that such a complex system would be useful in general
> practice.
I had a look at the arrows paper the other day,
and I found the underlying concepts fairly intuitive.
I skimmed over the more complex code examples without
trying to understand them in great detail, but I thought
the underlying concepts were reasonably straight-forward,
even if the technical details were a bit complex.
I don't know about you, but monads seemed pretty complex to me
the first (and second ;-) time around. But once you get the hang
of them, they do turn out to be pretty useful. Maybe the same will
be true of arrows.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "Binaries may die
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | but source code lives forever"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- leaked Microsoft memo.
