Stefan O'Rear wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
My assumption is that we have an equivalence
forall a,b . m (a - m b) ~ (a - m b)
because any side effect executed by the extra m on the outside can well
be delayed until we are supplied a value a. Well, at least when all
arguments are fully applied,
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
As has been already mentioned in this thread, in
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/papers/Applicative.html Conor McBride and
Ross Paterson invent/explain a new type class that is now part of the base
package (Control.Applicative). They also use/propose syntactic sugar for
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:35:12PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
My assumption is that we have an equivalence
forall a,b . m (a - m b) ~ (a - m b)
because any side effect executed by the extra m on the outside can well be
delayed until we are supplied a value a. Well, at least when all arguments
Stefan O'Rear schrieb:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:35:12PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
My assumption is that we have an equivalence
forall a,b . m (a - m b) ~ (a - m b)
because any side effect executed by the extra m on the outside can well be
delayed until we are supplied a value a. Well, at
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 05:39:34PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
Stefan O'Rear schrieb:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:35:12PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
My assumption is that we have an equivalence
forall a,b . m (a - m b) ~ (a - m b)
because any side effect executed by the extra m on the outside can
David Roundy wrote:
The only cost is that
this syntax relies on the do notation, and thus makes the desugaring of
that do notation slightly more complicated when used.
If I understand correctly,
do
blah
f (do
foo
bar (- action)
)
blah
has an ambiguity: which
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:27:45PM -0300, Isaac Dupree wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
The only cost is that
this syntax relies on the do notation, and thus makes the desugaring of
that do notation slightly more complicated when used.
If I understand correctly,
do
blah
f (do
Donn Cave wrote:
(I have a soft spot for O'Haskell, but
alas I must be nearly alone on that.)
You are /not/ alone :-) I always found it very sad that O'Haskell and also
its sucessor Timber (with all the good real-time stuff added) died
the 'quick death' of most research languages.
Cheers
David Roundy wrote:
Several times since reading the beginning of this discussion I've wished I
had the new syntax so I could write something like:
do if predicateOnFileContents (- readFile foo) then ...
instead of either
do contents - readFile foo
if predicateOnFileContents
On 8/9/07, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donn Cave wrote:
(I have a soft spot for O'Haskell, but
alas I must be nearly alone on that.)
You are /not/ alone :-) I always found it very sad that O'Haskell and also
its sucessor Timber (with all the good real-time stuff added) died
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:45:14PM +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
Several times since reading the beginning of this discussion I've wished I
had the new syntax so I could write something like:
do if predicateOnFileContents (- readFile foo) then ...
instead of
11 matches
Mail list logo
