On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:33, John Lato wrote:
> Is this really true? Consider iteratees that don't have a sensible default
> value (e.g. head) and an empty stream. You could argue that they should
> really return a Maybe, but then they wouldn't be divergent in other
> formulations either. Alt
From: John Millikin
>
> Here's my (uneducated, half-baked) two cents:
>
> There's really no need for an "Iteratee" type at all, aside from the
> utility of defining Functor/Monad/etc instances for it. The core type
> is "step", which one can define (ignoring errors) as:
>
>data Step a b = Con
On 8/24/10 3:54 AM, C. McCann wrote:
What sets an iteratee-style design apart from something conventional
based on a State monad is that the iteratee conceals its internal
state completely (in fact, there's no reason an iteratee even has to
be the "same" function step-to-step, or have a single co
Thanks for taking a look - I've never got round to investigating the
connection properly but have noticed the strong similarity between the
data type defintions of the ResT and Iteratee.
William Harrison makes the interesting point in the "Cheap Threads"
papers that by itself the resumption monad
Here's my (uneducated, half-baked) two cents:
There's really no need for an "Iteratee" type at all, aside from the
utility of defining Functor/Monad/etc instances for it. The core type
is "step", which one can define (ignoring errors) as:
data Step a b = Continue (a -> Step a b)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, John Lato wrote:
>> Aren't they closer - in implementation and by supported operations -
>> to resumptions monads?
>>
>> See many papers by William Harrison here:
>> http://www.cs.missouri.edu/~harrisonwl/abstracts.html
>
> I'm not familiar with resumption monads.
>
> From: Stephen Tetley
>
> On 24 August 2010 13:00, John Lato wrote:
>
> > This is how I think of them. I particularly your description of them as
> a
> > foldl with a "pause" button.
> > Maybe it would be helpful to consider iteratees along with delimited
> > continuations?
>
> Aren't they cl
On 24 August 2010 13:00, John Lato wrote:
> This is how I think of them. I particularly your description of them as a
> foldl with a "pause" button.
> Maybe it would be helpful to consider iteratees along with delimited
> continuations?
Aren't they closer - in implementation and by supported op
>
> From: "C. McCann"
>
> What sets an iteratee-style design apart from something conventional
> based on a State monad is that the iteratee conceals its internal
> state completely (in fact, there's no reason an iteratee even has to
> be the "same" function step-to-step, or have a single consiste
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> I believe the denotation of an iteratee is the transition function for an
> automaton (or rather a transducer). I hesitate to speculate on the specific
> kind of automaton without thinking about it, so maybe finite, maybe
> deterministic,
Conal Elliott wrote:
For anyone interested in iteratees (etc) and not yet on the iteratees
mailing list.
I'm asking about what iteratees *mean* (denote), independent of the various
implementations. My original note (also at the end below):
With the encouragement & help of Conrad Parker, I've
For anyone interested in iteratees (etc) and not yet on the iteratees
mailing list.
I'm asking about what iteratees *mean* (denote), independent of the various
implementations. My original note (also at the end below):
With the encouragement & help of Conrad Parker, I've been looking at
> iterat
12 matches
Mail list logo
