> How come you started out with playing around with FRP > libraries right > away? It's a rather peculiar choice, I'd say.
I'm always curious about how the languages I study interact with OpenGL because I'm in the numerical simulation. When I came to Haskell on December, it was quite a new sensation at the functional level first (I knew Scheme but I never tried to find out how Scheme could interact with OpenGL!) and also about IO. But I liked it (and running). Then I studied Reactive but I had some problems installing it on Linux GHC6.6 so I was looking another library and I saw your post on March I think. But my knowledge about Haskell was too light at this time. Then I studied more and here I am! > It's an interesting exercise, and quite a nice job from > someone who > considers themselves a beginner. thanks, it took me a few days but as I said it was floating in my head for a few months. > they can appear inside any expression. For instance, you > could just say > the following in the let declaration: > > sfall = (uncurry . fall) <$> randomBehavior seed > sid = pure id yes, I saw sfall too late (however I haven't thought about sid, thanks) > Another thing, which is really a matter of taste, is that > you seem to > like point-free style acrobatics. I don't think it's always > the best > choice, especially if you are to share code with others, > since most > people grok code with explicit parameters easier than magic > involving > flip and const and (un)curry and the like, except for the > obvious cases > of composing a chain of operations, where dropping > arguments feels quite > natural. For instance, the definition of f_a looks > problematic to me > because of these concerns. > I agree with you in general (point-free is unreadable), but in the case of f_a particularly, it took me a long time (not as long as for sf_a, however) to design it (not the point-free version but the raw one) and I think the point-free version is the best way to dissuade anyone to try to hack it and to persuade her to write a new function which fits her needs. It is actually the reason why I called f_a like this : because its two arguments are a function and a non-function argument (the first argument of sf_a is of course a signal of a function). This means I don't want to know how the machine works when I write my program. But it's a matter of taste as you said. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
