Well, I haven't used Arrows-minus-arr that much but I did cook up such a library some time ago. Mostly because I had a friend who was interested in using arrows for a data type which didn't have arr. And indeed there are several interesting types which lack arr but make perfect arrows otherwise.
Throwing out arr has a quite substantial impact on the design of the library. The original arrows library used arr pretty much everywhere to define various derived functions. One has to be much more disciplines when restricting oneself. Another thing is the arrows notation. It would take some work to translate it into arrows-minus-arr. But it is really painful to program with the new library without the notation which is the reason I haven't done much programming with it. /Josef On 6/1/05, Conal Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to hear more about people using Arrows-minus-arr, as I ran into > the same in a project I'm working on for interactive construction of > GUI-wrapped functional values & code. > > - Conal > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Shaw > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:55 AM > To: John Goerzen > Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] CGI module almost useless > > Hello, > > I have done all of those things in WASH. But, don't let that stop you > from writing something better :) I think some people started a project > to write a CGI interface based on a 'Category' -- where a 'Category' > is like an 'Arrow' without the 'pure/arr' function... > > Jeremy Shaw. > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
