Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:01:18 +1100, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Re (a): Usually, you have to process command line options
> etc, which also provides a natural place for
> initialization. See, eg, the `init' function for Gtk+HS
>
> http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/gtk%2bh
Elke Kasimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On 16-Feb-2001 Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> > Elke Kasimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>(...)
> > [...proposal for standardised monad transformers...]
> >
> > Personally, I would stick with the IO monad.
>
> Beyound personal preference, in my
On 16-Feb-2001 Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> Elke Kasimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
(...)
> [...proposal for standardised monad transformers...]
>
> Personally, I would stick with the IO monad.
Beyound personal preference, in my case having an "own"
monad has some objective advantages
Elke Kasimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> I'm planning a new cli/odbc-based database connectivity library for
> Haskell 98 and want to manage hidden state (various management
> information) on the Haskell side.
>
> Some libs. i.e. for gui, extend the IO monad for this using some
> "start" func
Does someone like to comment on this?
I'm planning a new cli/odbc-based database connectivity library for
Haskell 98 and want to manage hidden state (various management
information) on the Haskell side.
Some libs. i.e. for gui, extend the IO monad for this using some
"start" function:
main ::
