Abraham Egnor wrote:
> The classic way to write a lift function for tuples is, of course:
> liftTup f (a, b) = (f a, f b)
> which has a type of (a -> b) -> (a, a) -> (b, b). I've been wondering if
> it would be possible to write a function that doesn't require the types in
> the tuple to be th
[[ -- Apologies for multiple copies of this message -- ]]
Please,
find attached the list of accepted papers
to COORDINATION 2004.
--
***
Emilio Tuosto
Universita' di Pisa
Dipartimento di informatica
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:34:43PM +, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2003-11-18 at 10:46EST "Abraham Egnor" wrote:
> > The classic way to write a lift function for tuples is, of course:
> >
> > liftTup f (a, b) = (f a, f b)
> >
> > which has a type of (a -> b) -> (a, a) -> (b, b). I've been wonde
hello,
Ben Escoto wrote:
Maybe eventually I will see a need for mapWriter. As a passing
thought, I wonder how many programmers can read the mapWriterT
documentation:
mapWriterT :: (m (a, w) -> n (b, w')) -> WriterT w m a -> WriterT w' n b
and start pounding the code out? Anyway, once I get thi
On 2003-11-18 at 10:46EST "Abraham Egnor" wrote:
> The classic way to write a lift function for tuples is, of course:
>
> liftTup f (a, b) = (f a, f b)
>
> which has a type of (a -> b) -> (a, a) -> (b, b). I've been wondering if
> it would be possible to write a function that doesn't require the
The classic way to write a lift function for tuples is, of course:
liftTup f (a, b) = (f a, f b)
which has a type of (a -> b) -> (a, a) -> (b, b). I've been wondering if
it would be possible to write a function that doesn't require the types in
the tuple to be the same, just that the types in th
