Except in the complexity gymnastics and the fragility of the conclusions.
Humans can't do large scale complex brain gymnastics - that's why abstraction
exists - if your proof process doesn't abstract (and in the C case you need to
know *everything* about *everything* and have to prove it all in
Hello.
I'm trying to understand Monads. In order to do so, I decided to
create my own Monad for a simple domain-specific language.
The idea is to define a way to describe a multi-value replacement
inside do-notation.
Example of a function doing what I want (without Monads):
replaceAll :: (a -
I'm solving this exercise:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/All_About_Monads#Exercise_4:_Using_the_Monad_class_constraint
I'm missing a function to transform a Maybe a into a MonadPlus m = m a.
I did search on Hoogle with no luck.
There is no standard definition for the g function I'm
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Thiago Negri evoh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm solving this exercise:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/All_About_Monads#Exercise_4:_Using_the_Monad_class_constraint
I'm missing a function to transform a Maybe a into a MonadPlus m = m a.
I did search on Hoogle
On 07/28/2012 03:35 PM, Thiago Negri wrote:
[...]
As Monads are used for sequencing, first thing I did was to define the
following data type:
data TableDefinition a = Match a a (TableDefinition a) | Restart
So TableDefinition a is like [(a, a)].
[...]
So, to create a replacement table:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, damodar kulkarni kdamodar2...@gmail.com wrote:
So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
another with the same denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
But then isn't any language RT with a sufficiently cunning denotational
semantics?
