On 01/29/2012 11:55 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Sun Jan 29 05:34:17 -0500 2012:
[snip]
I think it is one of the simplest layouts one can some up with. I'll try
to explain the motivation behind each inclusion.
ABORTS(μ) ⊆ RECOVERABLE_ZEROS(μ)
I'm
On 01/24/2012 10:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Tue Jan 24 07:26:35 -0500 2012:
Sure, but note that evaluate for IO is implemented with seq# under the hood,
so as long as you actually get ordering in your monad it's fairly
straightforward
to
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Sun Jan 29 05:34:17 -0500 2012:
You are trying to make bottoms a new null pointers. Sometimes it just
doesn't worth the effort (or depends on the interpreter you use). I want
to have the option to say: sorry, in this particular case (monad) I
On 01/22/2012 02:47 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Sat Jan 21 09:25:07 -0500 2012:
But I also believe that you can't use this as justification to stick your
head in the sand, and pretend bottoms don't exist (regardless of whether or
not we'rd talking
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Tue Jan 24 07:26:35 -0500 2012:
Sure, but note that evaluate for IO is implemented with seq# under the hood,
so as long as you actually get ordering in your monad it's fairly
straightforward
to implement evaluate. (Remember that the ability
On 01/18/2012 10:43 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Wed Jan 18 08:47:37 -0500 2012:
Well, that's the kind of language we live in. The denotation of our language
always permits for bottom values, and it's not a terribly far jump from there
to undefined
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Sat Jan 21 09:25:07 -0500 2012:
But I also believe that you can't use this as justification to stick your
head in the sand, and pretend bottoms don't exist (regardless of whether or
not we'rd talking about asynchronous exceptions.) The reason is
On 01/18/2012 01:52 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:29, Mikhail Vorozhtsov
mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com mailto:mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be too optimistic about convincing GHC HQ. Even making
Applicative a superclass of Monad can make Haskell98
On 01/18/2012 02:45 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Tue Jan 17 06:29:12 -0500 2012:
The vehicle of implementation here is kind of important. If they are
implemented
as asynchronous exceptions, I can in fact still throw in this universe: I just
attempt
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Wed Jan 18 08:47:37 -0500 2012:
Well, that's the kind of language we live in. The denotation of our
language
always permits for bottom values, and it's not a terribly far jump from
there
to undefined and error foo. I don't consider the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 03:47, Mikhail Vorozhtsov
mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/18/2012 01:52 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:29, Mikhail Vorozhtsov
mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com
mailto:mikhail.vorozhtsov@**gmail.commikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 01/17/2012 03:00 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
[snip]
I don't think it makes too much sense have thing pick off a menu of
Abort/Recover/Finally from a semantics perspective:
It's easy to imagine monads that have an instance of one of the classes but
not of the others
I'd like to see some
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:29, Mikhail Vorozhtsov
mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be too optimistic about convincing GHC HQ. Even making
Applicative a superclass of Monad can make Haskell98 nazis come after you
in ninja suits.
What?! The only significant complaint I've seen
On 01/16/2012 02:15 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Hello Mikhail,
Hi.
Sorry, long email. tl;dr I think it makes more sense for throw/catch/mask to
be bundled together, and it is the case that splitting these up doesn't address
the original issue monad-control was designed to solve.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:17, Mikhail Vorozhtsov
mikhail.vorozht...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, you think of IO too much.
I think you two are talking about two related but different things;
monad-control is solving a *specific* problem with IO, but you want
something more general. I think
Hello Mikhail,
Thanks for continuing to be willing to participate in a lively discussion. :-)
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Mon Jan 16 08:17:57 -0500 2012:
On 01/16/2012 02:15 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Anders and I thought a little more about your example, and we first wanted
Hello Mikhail,
Sorry, long email. tl;dr I think it makes more sense for throw/catch/mask to
be bundled together, and it is the case that splitting these up doesn't address
the original issue monad-control was designed to solve.
~ * ~
Anders and I thought a
On 01/10/2012 11:12 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Tue Jan 10 09:54:38 -0500 2012:
On 01/10/2012 12:17 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Hello Mikhail,
Hi.
(Apologies for reviving a two month old thread). Have you put some thought into
whether or not these
On 01/10/2012 12:17 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Hello Mikhail,
Hi.
(Apologies for reviving a two month old thread). Have you put some thought into
whether or not these extra classes generalize in a way that is not /quite/ as
general as MonadBaseControl (so as to give you the power you need) but
Excerpts from Mikhail Vorozhtsov's message of Tue Jan 10 09:54:38 -0500 2012:
On 01/10/2012 12:17 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Hello Mikhail,
Hi.
(Apologies for reviving a two month old thread). Have you put some thought
into
whether or not these extra classes generalize in a way that is
Hello Mikhail,
(Apologies for reviving a two month old thread). Have you put some thought into
whether or not these extra classes generalize in a way that is not /quite/ as
general as MonadBaseControl (so as to give you the power you need) but still
allow you to implement the functionality you
Hi Mikhail,
your type class:
class MonadAbort e μ ⇒ MonadRecover e μ | μ → e where
recover ∷ μ α → (e → μ α) → μ α
looks a lot like the MonadCatchIO type class from MonadCatchIO-transformers:
class MonadIO m = MonadCatchIO m where
catch :: E.Exception e = m a - (e - m a) - m a
I haven't
On 11/14/2011 06:55 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
your type class:
class MonadAbort e μ ⇒ MonadRecover e μ | μ → e where
recover ∷ μ α → (e → μ α) → μ α
looks a lot like the MonadCatchIO type class from MonadCatchIO-transformers:
class MonadIO m = MonadCatchIO m where
catch ::
On 11/12/2011 07:34 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:
Are you going to release a new version of monad-control right away
Not just yet. I've split `monad-control` into two packages:
* `monad-control`: just exports `Control.Monad.Trans.Control`. This part is
finished.
* `lifted-base`: wraps all modules
24 matches
Mail list logo
