skaller wrote: >> 3) Very cool, especially for the axioms -- when will we see them as part >> of the typeclass? >> > > I actually tried to put one in but found it was a bit nasty. > Hmm .. do we have any theoreticians around .. > Very nasty, because for non-trivial monads the proof obligations are quite substantial.
I don't think it is theory you need there, it is good proof-tools. >> 4) What about something like 'do' notation, to make programming with >> Monads easier? >> > > * It's not clear how useful it would be in Felix, since as > an imperative language it's already running STM monad, > it has 'goto' so it already has continuation passing .. etc :) > And yet I (with 2 co-authors) still felt the need to introduce a nicer notation for monads in ocaml. Note how we use 'perform' and '<--' instead of 'do' and '<-', so as to not interfere with the ocaml syntax. > Some examples would help. > Code that uses Maybe (instead of exceptions) rapidly gets unreadable without some sugar. Same with code in any non-builtin monad. > * one might actually decide to make a swag of existing > Felix notation sugar for STM monad .. i.e. make the > core more functional > I would certainly like that move - and doing this might allow you to give better error messages too, because you'd be giving the compiler more information! Jacques ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
