Hello Gregory,
Tuesday, July 3, 2007, 1:02:44 AM, you wrote:
Right, I read more about it and found this out. The 'main'
function is apparently magical at runtime and allows you to break
i recommend you to read two htmls:
Gregory Propf wrote:
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure
functional monads.
Actually, it's stronger than that. All monads are pure functional, even
IO. Haskell is an entirely 100% pure functional language[*]. The IO
monad allows you to build up, in a pure,
Paul Hudak wrote:
readFile :: Name - FailCont - StrCont - Behaviour
Here StrCont was the success continuation, which took a string (the file
contents) as argument. I rather liked the flexibility that this offered
-- since I/O errors were fairly common, it made sense to give success
and
class Monad m = MonadError e m | m - e where
throwError :: e - m a
catchError :: m a - (e - m a) - m a
..
power of TwoCont? I mean, it still seems like there's an operation
missing that supplies new left and right continuations at once.
i guess, instead of one DiMonad with two sets of
apfelmus wrote:
class DiMonad m where
returnR :: a - m e a
bindR :: m e a - (a - m e b) - m e b
returnL :: e - m e a
bindL :: m e a - (e - m e' a) - m e' a
type TwoCont e a = (e - R) - (a - R) - R
A final question remains: does the dimonad abstraction cover the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gregory Propf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 1:40:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Parsers are monadic?
Gregory Propf wrote:
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure
functional monads.
Actually, it's
Gregory Propf wrote:
Right, I read more about it and found this out. The 'main' function is
apparently magical at runtime and allows you to break the with pure
functionality just once but since it can call other functions this allows
for useful programs to be written.
There is more than one
On Sunday 01 July 2007 09:34, Gregory Propf wrote:
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure functional
monads.
Neither did i; the general impression i'd got after almost a year of trying to
learn Haskell was: Monad Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more
wretched
Gregory Propf gregorypropf at yahoo.com writes:
First post. I'm a newbie, been using Haskell for about a
week and love it. Anyway, this is something I don't
understand. Parsers are monadic. I can see this if the
parser is reading from an input stream but if there's just a
block of text can't
Eric devnull1999 at yahoo.com writes:
Looks as if others may be answering questions you didn't ask.
I should read more carefully before posting: Big Chris did answer your
question, though phrased differently than I did.
--Eric
___
Haskell-Cafe
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure functional
monads.
--
Monadic just means a calculation using a mathematical structure
called a monad. All impure calculations in Haskell are monadic, but
not all monadic
11 matches
Mail list logo
