Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi Chris,
I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able
to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad.
I think this is a fantastic idea, please do so!
$( expr ) -- conflicts with template haskell
( - expr ) -- makes sense, and I
I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able
to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad. That would be
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.prime/2267
..
Thoughts?
what is the problem you're trying to solve, and is it worth the
complication in
| Couldn't this be best done with McBride and Patterson's Applicative
| idiom notation?
|
| So the above would become
|
| [[l m (pure x) n (pure y)]] (or something like that)
|
| It would have the advantage of being usable with any Applicative, not
| just Monads.
Does anyone have a pointer
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Does anyone have a pointer to a stand-alone description of full-scale idiom
notation.
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Idiom_brackets
I think I've seen something more detailed but I don't know if it was in
one of Conor's papers, or if it was personal
to illustrate why some of us are concerned about this extension,
a few examples might help. consider:
f (g (- mx))
does this stand for
(a) mx = \x- f (g x)
(b) f (mx = \x- (g x))
(c) none of the above, because there's no do
(d) something else entirely
if (a/b), does the
Jules Bean wrote:
do
a - m
b - n
l a x b y
becomes
l (- m) x (- n) y
...with, I suppose, left-to-right evaluation order. This looks 'almost
like substitution' which is the goal.
Having read the thread SPJ pointed to, I should point out that using a
mixture of Applicative and Monad
| f (g (- mx))
|
| does this stand for
|
| (a) mx = \x- f (g x)
| (b) f (mx = \x- (g x))
| (c) none of the above, because there's no do
| (d) something else entirely
For me the answer is definitely (c). Furthermore there must be no lambda
between the monadic splice and the
Dan Piponi wrote:
On 8/3/07, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do
a - m
b - n
l a x b y
becomes
l (- m) x (- n) y
Couldn't this be best done with McBride and Patterson's Applicative
idiom notation?
So the above would become
[[l m (pure x) n (pure y)]] (or something like
On 8/3/07, Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Couldn't this be best done with McBride and Patterson's Applicative
| idiom notation?
Does anyone have a pointer to a stand-alone description of full-scale idiom
notation.
S
The full paper is here:
Hello Claus,
Friday, August 3, 2007, 8:12:13 PM, you wrote:
f (g (- mx))
does this stand for
(a) mx = \x- f (g x)
this variant. just like any imperative language (are you used any?).
idea of FORmula TRANslator is old and widely used enough to prevent
such questions
--
Best
Jules Bean wrote:
do
a - m
b - n
l a x b y
becomes
l (- m) x (- n) y
...with, I suppose, left-to-right evaluation order. This looks 'almost
like substitution' which is the goal.
Almost?
So then (flip f) (- m) (- n) does *not* equal f (- n) (- m) ?
There goes any hope of my
I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able
to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad. That would be
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.prime/2267 and in the
recent OSCON video. Is someone working on implementing this?
If no, I'll take a crack
Hi Chris,
Simon mentioned this to me as a possible project when I started my
internship here at MSR, so I'm pretty sure this is both on the wish-list
and not already taken (but we should check with Simon to make sure).
I've since wished for it a few times as I've been implementing view
patterns,
Hi Chris,
I've heard Simon (Peyton-Jones) twice now mention the desire to be able
to embed a monadic subexpression into a monad.
I think this is a fantastic idea, please do so!
$( expr ) -- conflicts with template haskell
( - expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous
14 matches
Mail list logo
