On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Paul L <nine...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, forgot to CC the list. I wonder why Gmail doesn't default to > reply-all. >
If you have keyboard shortcuts on, reply to messages with the "a" key instead of the "r" key. I hardly ever use "r". Luke > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:48 PM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If we ignore the 'delay' primitive (which lifts latency into program > > logic), my model does meet all the arrow laws. Nonetheless, the issues > > of physical synchronization still apply. It's important to recognize > > that the Arrow Laws do not describe non-functional properties, such as > > time-space performance. > > Well, when you throw the time stamp into the value domain, and > according to your previous calculation of time stamps, (a1 *** a2) > >>> first a3 will produce different result than (a1 >>> a3) *** a2. > This is in direct conflict to arrow laws. > > Arrows by themselves do not impose physical synchronization. They are > very often used to model computations about synchronous data streams, > but that is a very different concept. > > >> In the actual implementation of such lifting (perhaps over multiple > >> type classes), the calculation of the time stamp can be made precise. > > > > Indeed. And it is precisely the greater of the input timestamps. ;-) > > This is because you are using a single number as timestamp. Define > your timestamp type differently, you'll get a different opinion. For > example, you can use a pair of time stamps for pairs, and nested time > stamps for nested values. > > -- > Regards, > Paul Liu > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
