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
On 13/06/14 10:47, Jan Stolarek wrote:
It seems that most people are in favour of using Phabricator for code review.
So what are the next
steps? Can we just start using the existing phabricator instance? I'm working
on some code right
now that definitely needs reviewing.
You can use it, and
So, without really trying to understand the code, what you are saying is this:
you want a finite map from RdrNames. That seems sensible enough, if the domain
elements all appear in the same scope in the Haskell source. I don't have
enough perspective to say whether a Uniquable instance is the
We just haven't needed one so far.
Can a RdrName and a Name have the same Unique? Well, of course that just
depends on what you are using the RdrName Uniques for. It's not a question
that has a yes or no answer.
Does it matter if (Orig m x) and (Orig n x) have the same Unique? Same answer,
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
yes, that what I meant, though the standard = does need to be used
carefully on a restricted universe of types to ensure you can get a deep
embedding
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:33 PM, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you mean pure/return as the monadic equivalent? I've frequently
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:10:14PM -0400, Carter Schonwald wrote:
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
