david48 wrote:
On the other hand, on page 320 there is a nice explanation of Monoid,
and on page 380, which isn't mentionned in the index, there might be
the first time one can understand why the writer monad works with
monoids instead of lists: to be able to use better suited data types
for
A very nice writeup about the use of monoid with finger tree.
But please, use the names of the monoid operations that the rest of
the Haskell libraries use.
By using different names you are just confusing readers (even if you
don't like the standard names).
Also, you can replace Infinity by
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Heinrich Apfelmus
apfel...@quantentunnel.de wrote:
Let me explain this monoid magic, albeit not in this message which would
become far too long, but at
http://apfelmus.nfshost.com/monoid-fingertree.html
That is a very nice summary! I did my own
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
A very nice writeup about the use of monoid with finger tree.
Thanks :)
But please, use the names of the monoid operations that the rest of
the Haskell libraries use.
By using different names you are just confusing readers (even if you
don't like the standard
Apfelmus, Heinrich schrieb:
Obviously, those who know what a monoid is have already invested years
of time practicing mathematics while those that even attack the name
monoid clearly lack this practice. It's like peano virtuosoes compared
to beginning keyboard pressers.
Aren't all Haskellers
david48 wrote:
Apfelmus, Heinrich wrote:
Hm, what about the option of opening Bird's Introduction on Functional
Programming using Haskell in the section about fold? Monoid is on page
62 in the translated copy I've got here.
I don't think that I would try to learn a programming language, for
John Lato wrote:
Here is the current complete documentation for Data.Monoid 'mappend',
which happens to be a good example of which I speak:
An associative operation
That could mean anything. There are lots of associative operations.
Yes. In combination with the definition of mempty (the
Paul Moore wrote:
Apfelmus, Heinrich wrote:
How to learn? The options are, in order of decreasing effectiveness
university course teacher in person
book irc
mailing list
online tutorial
haskell wiki
haddock documentation
Reason by
Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I would suggest that ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypeVariables would be an
improvement [...]
That must be a joke. Typing the long extension names in LANGUAGE
pragmas over and over again is tiring and annoying
Andrew Coppin wrote:
I can't await the next Haskell standard, where at last all those
extensions are builtin.
This frightens me.
The example he had had the uses keyword, so I assume it's built in in
the same way Perl pragma are built in. So you can happily ignore code
when you see uses at
- Original Message
From: Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com
Which is why I personally prefer HiddenTypeVariables. (This has the advantage
of using only pronouncible English
words, which means you can use it when speaking out loud.)
Existential - English, easy to pronounce
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I would suggest that ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypeVariables would be
an improvement [...]
That must be a joke. Typing the long extension names in LANGUAGE
The great that's why is as follows: when you have an abstraction,
then it is sufficient to hold the abstraction in mind instead of the
whole concrete implementation. That's the whole purpose of
abstraction, after all, be it maths or programming.
Let me illustrate this.
Suppose you are developing
G'day all.
Quoting Gracjan Polak gracjanpo...@gmail.com:
I remember my early CS algebra courses. I met cool animals there: Group,
Ring, Vector Space. Those beasts were very strong, but also very calm at
the same time. Although I was a bit shy at first, after some work we
became friends.
I
G'day all.
Dan Weston wrote:
Richard Feinman once said: if someone says he understands quantum
mechanics, he doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
But what did he know...
Presumably not quantum mechanics.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I would suggest that ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypeVariables would be an
improvement [...]
That must be a joke. Typing the long extension names in LANGUAGE
pragmas over and over again is tiring and annoying enough already. We
really don't need
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM, ChrisK hask...@list.mightyreason.com wrote:
So the original article, which coined 'Appendable', did so without much
thought in the middle of a long post. But it does show the thinking was
about collections and there is one ONE instance of Monoid at
Dan Weston wrote:
Richard Feinman once said: if someone says he understands quantum
mechanics, he doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
But what did he know...
Well, I am a physicist and Feynman (with a y, not an i), is not talking about
the linear algebra.
Of course, linear algebra [1]
Here is a great Monoid found in the wild story:
I just implemented a library for binary message serialization that follows
Google's protocol buffer format.
The documentation of this was very scattered in some respects but I kept reading
snippets which I have pasted below. The effect of
Dan Piponi wrote:
Several people have suggested this, and I think it would go a long way
towards solving the problem.
That sounds like a good plan. Which precise bit of documentation
should I update? Make a new wiki page? Put it in here:
That looks like a freakin' cool idea; however very hard to implement;
so why not write such wikis in predefined places, like,
haskell.org/haskellwiki/Data/Monoid/ and allow haddock to
automatically put links there from the generated documentation? This
would make the documentation (on the wiki)
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Eugene Kirpichov ekirpic...@gmail.comwrote:
That looks like a freakin' cool idea; however very hard to implement;
so why not write such wikis in predefined places, like,
haskell.org/haskellwiki/Data/Monoid/ and allow haddock to
automatically put links there
Thorkil Naur wrote:
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
It is rather funny. When we are young kids, we learn weird symbols like
A B C a b c 1 2 3
which we accept after a while.
But Functor, Monoid or Monad, that we cannot accept anymore. Why, because
these are not intuitive? Are the symbols
2009/1/16 Apfelmus, Heinrich apfel...@quantentunnel.de:
How to learn? The options are, in order of decreasing effectiveness
university course teacher in person
book irc
mailing list
online tutorial
haskell wiki
haddock documentation
Ketil Malde ketil at malde.org writes:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 07:46:02PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
If we *must* insist on using the most obscure possible name for
everything,
I don't think anybody even suggests using obscure names. Some people
insist on precise names.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Duncan Coutts wrote:
If you or anyone else has further concrete suggestions / improvements
then post them here now! :-)
Show various examples of how monoids apply to programming
concepts/problems, e.g. monoids to combine configuration
parameters/flags, monoids in writers,
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 17:58 +, John Lato wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Duncan Coutts wrote:
If you or anyone else has further concrete suggestions / improvements
then post them here now! :-)
Show various examples of how monoids apply to programming
concepts/problems, e.g. monoids to
Well-put. Thanks! - Conal
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Dougal Stanton ith...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM, ChrisK hask...@list.mightyreason.com
wrote:
So the original article, which coined 'Appendable', did so without much
thought in the middle of a long
david48 wrote:
I don't care about the name, it's ok for me that the name
mathematicians defined is used, but there are about two categories of
people using haskell and
I would love that each concept would be adequately documented for everyone:
- real-world oriented programming documentation
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
Wikipedia's first sentence about monoids is:
In abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics, a monoid is an algebraic
structure with a single, associative binary operation and an identity
element.
Which is *not* intuitive to someone that comes
Ross Mellgren rmm-hask...@z.odi.ac writes:
Usually when encountering something like Monoid (if I didn't already
know it), I'd look it up in the library docs. The problem I've had
with this tactic is twofold:
First, the docs for the typeclass usually don't give any practical
examples, so
Lennart Augustsson lenn...@augustsson.net writes:
By no means do I suggest that Wikipedia should replace Haskell library
documentation.
I think the libraries should be documented in a mostly stand-alone way
(i.e., no references to old papers etc.). In the case of Monoid, a
few lines of text
John == John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
John I guess the bottom line question is: who is Haskell for? Category
John theorists, programmers, or both? I'd love it to be for both, but
John I've got to admit that Brian has a point that it is trending to
John the first in some areas.
Andrew == Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
Andrew If we *must* insist on using the most obscure possible name for
Andrew everything, can we at least write some documentation that
Andrew doesn't require a PhD to comprehend?? (Anybody who attempts to
Andrew argue that monoid is
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:04 AM, m...@justinbogner.com wrote:
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
Wikipedia's first sentence about monoids is:
In abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics, a monoid is an algebraic
structure with a single, associative binary operation and an
Yes! The library documentation tree has a way of making everything
seem equally important, when that is not the case. This is why we need
well-crafted tutorials and books.
2009/1/15 David Fox dds...@gmail.com:
Monoid isn't something I came across and didn't understand, its something I
should
Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
How does forcing them to learn proposed terminology such as `Appendable'
help here? Learners of Haskell do still need to learn what the new word
means.
The contention is that 'Appendable' is an intuitive naming that people
will already have a rudimentary grasp of.
Manlio Perillo wrote:
I'm fine with current names.
However I would like to see better documentation, and examples.
You can't just have in the documentation:
this is xxx from yyy branch of mathematics, see this paper.
You should explain how (and why) to use xxx.
Absolutely this! I would
38 matches
Mail list logo
