On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:48:16AM -0400, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> On 10/09/05, Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are good arguments, and I think this is a good direction for the
> > discussion, should it continue.
> >
> > > Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't r
It appears to me that:
* Many people don't like having to "extract values" from a monad on a
separate line, but would like to be able to mix monadic return values
into pure expressions, on the way to calculating a monadic result.
* Some people want to fix this by doing an implicit lifting ope
On 10/09/05, Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are good arguments, and I think this is a good direction for the
> discussion, should it continue.
>
> > Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> > for the proposed syntax.
> >
> > myList :: [[Integer]]
>
Am Samstag, 10. September 2005 05:12 schrieb Aaron Denney:
> [...]
> Well, monads are already treated specially -- the whole do syntax.
But the do syntax isn't a very drastic special treatment of monads. There is
a relatively simple syntax-based transformation into code without do
expressions.
Am Freitag, 9. September 2005 23:56 schrieb Frederik Eaton:
> [...]
> Would it mean treating the 'Monad' class specially? Perhaps, but I
> don't think this is a reason to avoid it.
As far as I can see, your approach would make Haskell a kind of imperative
programming language. Side-effects woul
I heartily agree with everything Cale wrote
on this topic.
In addition, I hereby apologize to Claus for
being too lazy to participate in the survey.
Regards,
Yitz
Cale Gibbard wrote:
> Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> for the proposed syntax.
>
> myList ::
These are good arguments, and I think this is a good direction for the
discussion, should it continue.
> Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> for the proposed syntax.
>
> myList :: [[Integer]]
> myList = return [1,2,3,4]
I'm assuming you mean
myList :: [[Intege
On 2005-09-09, Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I thought the easy answer would be to inject non-monadic values into the
>> monad (assuming one already rejiggered things to do automatic lifting).
>
> I don't know if this is the right way of looking at it. Do you have an
> example?
In
life is funny, isn't it? so many people so eagerly discussing conversion
between non-monadic and monadic code, yet when we asked for your
opinions and suggestions on this very topic only a short while ago,
we got a total of 4 (four) replies - all quite useful, mind you, so we were
grateful, but s
Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
for the proposed syntax.
myList :: [[Integer]]
myList = return [1,2,3,4]
Is myList equal to [[1,2,3,4]] or [[1],[2],[3],[4]]? Either
interpretation is possible if there is automatic lifting about. If the
lifting only occurs when
By the way, I thought it would be obvious, but a lot of people seem to
be missing the fact that I'm not (as Sean, I believe, isn't)
requesting limited support for 1 or 2 or 3 argument functions or
certain type classes to be applied to monads, or for certain
operations to defined on certain types. I
On 2005-09-09, Keean Schupke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keean Schupke wrote:
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind. Obviously I want something
> that applies to all functions, with any number of arguments, and not
> just (+). Furthermore, it should handle cases like 1+[2,3] w
On 2005-09-08, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of course, we can't do this because Num has Ord and Show as superclasses
> when it really doesn't need to. (we would have to create a separate
> class for 'pattern matchable nums' if we got rid of those, but that is
> no problem other than be
13 matches
Mail list logo
