On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.org> wrote:
>>> Functor is quite loaded name and may lead to confusion.
>> Yes, the name is a problem. OpenAxiom uses "Functorial".
>> But I think Functor is fine, given the context that Haskell is
>> using this name.
> BTW, in Aldor the "Maybe" domain is called "Partial".
I'd be OK to adopt this name.
> You probably suggested that, because the "if" line shouldn't be there
> and you actually wanted something that applies to all pairs of monads.
> But your FunctorPackage just does the lifting of map for only one
> particular monad (namely Maybe).
Yes, that package is supposed for ALL Funtors, to
(potenially) replace current 50+ '*Functions2' package,
not invent a new one solely for Maybe:
if FA is Maybe A and FB is Maybe B then ...
if FA is X A and FB is X B then ...
if FA is Y A and FB is Y B then ...
> I'm still of the opinion that the concept of monads cannot be nicely
> defined in SPAD.
> Note that in
> class Monad m where
> (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
> (>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b
> return :: a -> m a
> fail :: String -> m a
> the "m" appears in front of a and in front of b. I'm not aware of a
> SPAD/Aldor syntax that can describe this situation.
That "m" stands for "the same Monad constructor", Spad don't have similar
syntax, that's why I have to simulate it by "if FA is Maybe A and FB
is Maybe B".
This package doesn't forbid MONADPKG(String, Integer, Maybe String,
which is obviously wrong.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.