Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Sebastian Fischer wrote:
I still don't understand why it is impossible to provide `orElse`
with
the original type. I will think more about the reason you gave.
The reason is that you have chosen the "wrong" type for your
continuation monad; it should be
newtype CMaybe a = CMaybe (forall r. (a -> Maybe r) -> Maybe r)
Yes, with this type `orElse` has the same type as `mplus`, which is
very nice.
<Aside>
Personally, I recommend to stop thinking about continuations
altogether
and instead use the approach I've outlined in "The Operational Monad
Tutorial"
I appreciate your operational monad tutorial both for the idea and how
you explained it. But the advice "stop thinking about X because Y is
better" feels odd to me. Before I know by myself that Y is better than
X (which requires thinking about both X and Y) I don't feel
comfortable following such advice. Afterwards, I don't need such
advice ;)
There may be more to X than just Y. IIRC, there is more to
'continuations' than 'monads'. For example, the implementation of
`callCC` does not type check with your changed data type.
</Aside>
I shall try to implement a monad that supports two choice operations
(one which fulfills the distributive law and one which satisfies the
cancellation property) with the operational package.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition.
(D.G.)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
