On 18/12/2018 18:02, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Moreover, while there is little risk of confusion when arrow
syntax is used, looking just at names, the fact is that the use of the
distinct "returnA" also sends a similar signal to the reader, and
consequently there is a certain consistency in distinct
On 2018-12-18 7:25 p.m., Doug McIlroy wrote:
I am very glad to see Applicative take its place in the
report: one less mystery in understanding Haskell in the
wild. The following comments pertain to presentation.
Thank you for the comments. I will act on them if we end up accepting
the proposal
I am very glad to see Applicative take its place in the
report: one less mystery in understanding Haskell in the
wild. The following comments pertain to presentation.
13.1 Functor class
"The Functor class is used for types that can be mapped over."
"is used for" is extremely vague. Better wordin
Hi,
On 12/18/2018 02:52 PM, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Secondarily, it's a bit hard to describe why this is, but I personally
find it a bit obnoxious whenever someone uses 'pure' rather than
'return' if the functor is known to be an instance of Monad and the
generality isn't needed. It's a kind of sign
Not taken personally, don't worry. You've done enough picking up where
I've failed to get work done over the years, too!
I'm trying to be deliberate about "this does raise this issue but it
isn't a blocker and can be separated out" pretty much precisely so I can
be cheerfully ignored if nobody
I guess I didn't mean to pick on your suggestion exactly -- the comments on
the pull request triggered my remark even moreso, but I was on my phone and
it was slightly easier to reply here.
Where I work, we've come to calling <$ "ice cream cone", so perhaps <* is
"snow cone", lol.
It's definitely
Getting to ditch a similar connotation in do notation is exactly why
I've started this thread, of course! Some instances are far less about
having pure/return, at least without some more powerful constructs we
can't have in a standardised Haskell just yet. It's maybe a personal
irritation that
Is it just me, or is all the discussion in these threads much more easily
resolved if the Report is simply a report? Describe what is, rather than
what you wish it was, and there's much less room for disagreement. A future
Report can describe the way that these things work differently in the
future
I'm having a moment of fail trying to work out how to leave a comment.
Is there a reason (other than GHC not doing it yet) not to have do
notation use *> instead of >> in line with using the least restrictive
function? I have some otherwise-nice logic programming code that would
actively benef
The very first RFC created (https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1), the
Applicative/Monad Proposal, has now reached the Last Call stage. In
order to ground the discussion, I have taken some time to update the
Prelude and the text of the Haskell Report with its effects before the
call. The rend
10 matches
Mail list logo
