Don Stewart wrote:
allbery:
Didn't someone already prove all monads can be implemented in terms
of Cont?
Cont and StateT, wasn't it?
And the schemers have no choice about running in StateT :)
You sure? I want to see the proof :)
Last time I stumbled upon something like this, the proof
Hello,
Didn't someone already prove all monads can be implemented in terms
of Cont?
Cont and StateT, wasn't it?
And the schemers have no choice about running in StateT :)
You sure? I want to see the proof :)
I think this is referring to Andrzej Filinski's paper Representing
Layered
jeff p wrote:
I think this is referring to Andrzej Filinski's paper Representing
Layered Monads in which it shown that stacks of monads can be
implemented directly (no layering) by using call/cc and mutable state.
I have been unable to see how to bring its crucial reify and reflect
to
On Saturday 13 October 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
jeff p wrote:
I think this is referring to Andrzej Filinski's paper Representing
Layered Monads in which it shown that stacks of monads can be
implemented directly (no layering) by using call/cc and mutable state.
I have been unable to
