About monad transformers, I don't really like to use them because they
can get hairy in some cases, and because they have poor performance in
other cases.
Then what is your alternative? How do you replace monad transformers?
___
Haskell-Cafe
On 5 July 2010 10:39, Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
Then what is your alternative? How do you replace monad transformers?
Possibly more a case of doing without rather than replacing them with
something else, you would amalgamate all the monadic effects you want
into one monad.
E.g.
Hello fellow Haskellers,
I'd like to discuss an interesting topic. My experience is that there
are two worlds in Haskell, which are quite separate: the pure,
algorithmic world, where you use idiomatic pure Haskell, and the
IO-driven world of state, change, threads and execution, where you use
Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de writes:
[snip]
I fear that my code is already too difficult to understand for
beginners, and it's getting worse. But then I ask myself: I've got a
powerful language, so why shouldn't I use that power? After all I
haven't learnt Haskell to write C code with
Hello Ertugrul,
Saturday, July 3, 2010, 4:25:22 PM, you wrote:
This has proven very useful for me. My usual way is writing monad
transformers and sticking them together, often together with concurrent
programming.
... /what/ my code is
doing, because it's written in natural language as
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Haskell provides a lot of low level glue like laziness, currying and
other very helpful language features. But what is different in Haskell
is that it doesn't seem to provide any high level glue like other
languages do,
Felipe Lessa wrote:
Oh, so it is about monad transformers. =)
I agree that it gets harder to reason about the code. In fact,
sometimes I stack monad transformers in the wrong order.
About monad transformers, I don't really like to use them because they
can get hairy in some cases, and
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
- Perform unusual flow control.
- I/O (or some restricted subset of it).
Can
Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
- Perform unusual flow
Most languages today provide a certain glue to bring everything
together.
Most languages today provide several kinds of glue and, while some
of those kinds are not recommended, Haskell unfortunately doesn't
provide all useful kinds of glue. Especially the module system is a
weak point: in SML,
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly
Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 3 July 2010 14:20, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Tangentally, it seems to me that all monads can be described as doing zero
or more of:
- Invisibly pass state around (and possibly modify it).
- Perform unusual flow control.
- I/O (or some
On 3 July 2010 15:04, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I said does something that doesn't fall under one of these. The identity
monad, by contrast, does nothing that does fall under these. :-P (It falls
under zero of these.)
Okay, how about:
The probability monad
The
13 matches
Mail list logo
