Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride <co...@strictlypositive.org> написал(а): > I'd be glad if "pure" meant "total", but > partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we > could choose to restrict ourselves, but we wouldn't be restricted by the > language. I second that. Having a special "partiality" monad would be nice. However, I'm not certain as to how it would interact with recursion — if f is a total function, fix f could be (and almost certainly would be) a possibly undiefined value. So, fix should have type "(a -> a) -> Partial a"; that's OK, but implicit uses of fix (I mean let statements) would be quite different. > I'd like to program with an applicative notion, but > in monadic types. That's what I'd do different, and for me, the subject > is not a hypothetical question. So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic calculations in a list (without joining all there effects as the sequence function does)? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
