I didn't knew Wadler's papers (I save all papers I read into a external USB HD, so I can read them later!), and at a first glance it is really good.
Then again, instead of creating another "monad tutorial", what about a Haskell monads reference guide, and some worked examples? Some of this work could even be attached to the library documentation. Regards Rafael On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 15:27, Derek Elkins <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:22 +0000, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote: > > Jonathan Cast wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 12:56 -0200, Rafael Gustavo da Cunha Pereira > > > Pinto wrote: > > >> > > >> Inspired by the paper "Functional Programming with Overloading and > > >> Higher-Order Polymorphism", Mark P Jones > > >> (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/springschool.html<http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/%7Empj/pubs/springschool.html> > ) > > >> Advanced School of Functional Programming, 1995. > > >> > > >> SO WHAT? > > > > > > So have you read Jones' paper? Or do you have a *concrete* > > > explanation of how it differs from your desired `guided tour'? > > > > To give a specific example, a few weeks ago I wanted an explanation of > > the 'pass' function and couldn't find it in that paper. > > > > Ganesh > > Several years ago I documented all the (basic) monads in the mtl on the > (old) wiki. > > http://web.archive.org/web/20030927210146/haskell.org/hawiki/MonadTemplateLibrary > In particular, > http://web.archive.org/web/20030907203223/haskell.org/hawiki/MonadWriter > > > To respond to the essential point of Rafael's initial claim, Wadler's > papers "The Essence of Functional Programming" and/or "Monads for > Functional Programming" have exactly what he wants. These are the > papers that I recommend to anyone who is learning about monads. > http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html > > Please, we do not need the 101st monad tutorial when there was an > adequate one made almost two decades ago. While I'm not saying that > this is the case here, I suspect that many people don't read those > papers because 1) they haven't heard of them and 2) they are "papers" > and thus couldn't possibly be readable and understandable (which also > partially causes (1) as people just don't think to look for papers at > all.) > > -- Rafael Gustavo da Cunha Pereira Pinto Electronic Engineer, MSc.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
