On Nov 21, 2007 3:49 AM, Laurent Deniau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Verswyvelen wrote: > > Conal Elliott wrote: > >> Moreover, functional programming makes it easy to have much more state > >> than imperative programming, namely state over *continuous* time. The > >> temporally discrete time imposed by the imperative model is pretty > >> puny in comparison. Continuous (or "resolution-independent") time has > >> the same advantages as continuous space: resource-adaptive, scalable, > >> transformable. > > Yes, that's true, but isn't that also the problem with FRP? I mean, most > > of the papers I'm reading about (A)FRP indicate that no matter how nice > > it is to have the continuous time model
> I agree with Conal, it's not a continuous time model but a > resolution-independent time model. What do mean by resolution-independent vs continuous? I meant them more-or-less synonymously. Semantically, there's no notion of resolution. When it's time to introduce a resolution for discrete rendering, there's no resolution imposed by the model. > The reason it that Arrows (like > Monads) encapsulate the sequence of transitions. Unless the time is a > parameter of the transition, it is independent of the time (resolution), > but still captures its ordered nature. I'm confused again. I don't think of Arrow as implying transitions at all. > > to get fine grained control > > over execution times and resources, one needs to fall back to the > > discrete delta-time approach? > If you need synchronization, yes. Why? What about synchronization implies discretness in the model? - Conal
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
