Except that he does say in the conclusion of the paper: "This paper
proposes the replacement of monads as a structuring tool for combinator
libraries, by arrows."
I don't think he made that argument though; I think the argument he made was
that arrows could be an alternative structuring tool for combinator
libraries that supply additional power at some cost in convenience. The
second paragraph of the conclusion pretty much describes when arrows could
and should be used. And he ends the paper with "In short, we believe that
arrows offer a useful extension to the generality of generic library
interfaces", a reasonable (and understated) claim.
-- Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: David Barton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 7:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: syntactic sugar for "arrows"
Michael Hobbs writes:
Yes, I can see how the arrow paradigm would work very well for
things such as parsing LL(1) grammars, but I could not see how such
a scheme could become a _replacement_ for monads in general purpose
programming. Perhaps I was expecting the wrong thing from the
concept...
I agree, and (not to speak for John Hughes, but I will anyway) I
suspect John would as well.
