Did you mean pure/return as the monadic equivalent? I've frequently encountered embeddings where it's possible to have a valid <*> and >>= but not pure (or fmap).
On Jun 17, 2014 1:46 PM, "Carter Schonwald" <[email protected]> wrote: > > ok, so one example of this design, albeit implemented in a funky way (compiler passes written in coq), was > Adam Megacz's Garrows project http://www.megacz.com/berkeley/garrows/ > > a more concrete example of a haskell lib that enjoys a deep embedding and doesn't let you inject arbitrary (f:: a-> b ) > would be Accelerate hackage.haskell.org/package/accelerate (the expression language there could be made into an "arr free Arrow" but not an Arrow that has arr) > > basically not having arr or the monadic equiv bind, gives you a way to write libs where you can get a program as a first order AST when you "run it" and be able to analyze/compile it in user land at runtime > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jan Stolarek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > assuming that any haskell function can be embedded in an >> > arrow instance (...) prevents a lot of interesting deep embedding uses of the Arrow >> > abstraction >> Could you point me to some specific examples? I'm new to arrows and definitely far from groking >> all the arcana of their usage. >> >> Janek > > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
