Ross Paterson wrote:
John Hughes has defined a new abstract view of computation, in his
(currently draft) paper "Generalising Monads to Arrows", at
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/arrows.ps
Has anyone else read this paper? I'm interested in hearing comments, if
only to
Hi,
I'm using HaskellObject inside Visual Basic 6.0. If I create only 1 object
(or 2 objects that have the same source), no problem happen. But when I
create 2 objects (different source), Visual Basic 6.0 was crashed.
Do you know why? Would you please reply as soon as possible !
HaskellObject
Simon writes:
2. The data and type constructors
(), (,), (,,), etc
[]
(-)
are all regarded as "syntax", not as identifiers. They always mean
their standard meaning (tuples, empty list or list type constructor).
[No change here.]
The question
Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Time to ditch all those dusty old monads and upgrade to arrows.
However the point-free style of that paper won't appeal to everyone.
I've placed a proposal for a Haskell extension with a do-notation-style
syntax for arrows at
interface for libraries (rather than monads).
It seems like he would supply a monad interface to arrow libraries
for those libraries which are expressible as monads and for which the user
prefers the monad primitives.
The monad interface to arrows would be completely generic. The
library writer
Attention graphic designers! We need a logo for Hugs! See
haskell.org/hugs/logo.html for details about the Hugs logo contest.
Win prizes!!
John
