On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:02:37PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:47:04AM +0300, Lauri Alanko wrote:
> > When I use arrows, I find that many of my primitives are of type (a () b)
> > (for some arrow type a): they produce a value but don't take any input.
> > E.g. determinis
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:47:04AM +0300, Lauri Alanko wrote:
> When I use arrows, I find that many of my primitives are of type (a () b)
> (for some arrow type a): they produce a value but don't take any input.
> E.g. deterministic parsers are like this.
>
> The syntactic sugar for arrows is love
When I use arrows, I find that many of my primitives are of type (a () b)
(for some arrow type a): they produce a value but don't take any input.
E.g. deterministic parsers are like this.
The syntactic sugar for arrows is lovely, but I find it a bit tedious
writing "foo -< ()" all the time. The sy
