Am Dienstag, 17. März 2009 05:09 schrieb wren ng thornton:
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
Or to put it another way, category theory is the pattern language of
mathematics.
Indeed. Though, IMO, there's a distinction between fairly banal things
(e.g. monoids),
Monoids aren’t a concept of category
Wolfgang == Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org writes:
Wolfgang By the way, the documentation of Control.Category says
Wolfgang that a category is a monoid (as far as I remember). This
Wolfgang is wrong. Category laws correspond to monoid laws but
Wolfgang monoid
Am Dienstag, 17. März 2009 10:54 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org writes:
By the way, the documentation of Control.Category says that a category is
a monoid (as far as I remember). This is wrong. Category laws correspond
to monoid laws but monoid composition is
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:06 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 17. März 2009 10:54 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org writes:
By the way, the documentation of Control.Category says that a category is
a monoid (as far as I remember). This is wrong. Category
2009/3/11 Mark Spezzano mark.spezz...@chariot.net.au:
I’m very familiar with the concept of Design Patterns for OOP in Java and
C++. They’re basically a way of fitting components of a program so that
objects/classes fit together nicely like Lego blocks and it’s useful because
it also provides
Because Haskell is not OO, it is functional, I was
wondering if there is
some kind of analogous design pattern/template type concept that
describe commonly used functions that can be factored out
in a general
sense to provide the same kind of usefulness that Design
Patterns do for
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org wrote:
What is a “generalized monoid”? According to the grammatical construction
(adjective plus noun), it should be a special kind of monoid
There's no such implication in English. The standard example used by
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Imperative programmers also used it to describe programming patterns.
Implementations of things like Observer/VIsitor etc. are ad-hoc,
informal constructions; the equivalent in a functional language is a
mathematical structure (feel free to fix my terminology). I don't
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org:
Most of the (particular) problems OO design patterns solve are
non-issues in Haskell because the language is more expressive.
...and vice versa. Some of the design patterns that we use in
Haskell, for example,
G'day all.
Quoting wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org:
Most of the (particular) problems OO design patterns solve are
non-issues in Haskell because the language is more expressive.
...and vice versa. Some of the design patterns that we use in
Haskell, for example, are to overcome the fact
Mark Spezzano wrote:
Because Haskell is not OO, it is functional, I was wondering if there is
some kind of analogous “design pattern”/”template” type concept that
describe commonly used functions that can be “factored out” in a general
sense to provide the same kind of usefulness that Design
wren:
There also a number of idioms which are similar in scope to the idioms
that arise in other languages: using tail recursion, accumulators,
continuation-passing transformations, closures over recursion[6],
Schwartzian transforms, etc.
[6] For lack of a better name. I mean doing
Hi,
I’m very familiar with the concept of Design Patterns for OOP in Java and
C++. They’re basically a way of fitting components of a program so that
objects/classes fit together nicely like Lego blocks and it’s useful because
it also provides a common “language” to talk about concepts, like
2009/3/11 Mark Spezzano mark.spezz...@chariot.net.au:
Hi,
I’m very familiar with the concept of Design Patterns for OOP in Java and
C++. They’re basically a way of fitting components of a program so that
objects/classes fit together nicely like Lego blocks and it’s useful because
it also
The concept of design pattern tends not to be used by Haskell
programmers - it brings a lot of baggage with it (like being formally
documented in a particular way, being proven by being used in
production several times, etc.) and it doesn't seem to be particularly
useful for us in this heavyweight
Hi Mark,
Because Haskell is not OO, it is functional, I was wondering if there is
some kind of analogous “design pattern”/”template” type concept that
describe commonly used functions that can be “factored out” in a general
sense to provide the same kind of usefulness that Design Patterns do
16 matches
Mail list logo
