On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
Though one possibility that might get
us most of the way there would be to refactor the Arrow class as
class PreArrow a where
premap :: (b - b') - a
Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
Though one possibility that might get us most of the way there would
be to refactor the Arrow class as
class PreArrow a where
premap :: (b - b') - a b' c - a b c
Note that you are reinventing the 'profunctors' package here. Every
arrow forms a
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 06:51:07PM +0100, Tsuyoshi Ito wrote:
Thank you for the response. This sounds exciting, but sadly, I must
admit that it is a little (?) above my head, and I cannot relate this
extension to my original question….
Sorry about that -- I got a bit side-tracked. The
Silly me -- that code works with the current GHC (module attached).
I still think the generalization is worth doing, though.
-
{-# LANGUAGE Arrows #-}
module ArrowTest where
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Arrow
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Ross Paterson r...@soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
Silly me -- that code works with the current GHC (module attached).
Aha! Now I see why the GHC documentation states “the arrows involved
need not be the same” in the section about banana brackets. After
all, I was wrong
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
Though one possibility that might get
us most of the way there would be to refactor the Arrow class as
class PreArrow a where
premap :: (b - b') - a b' c - a b c
class (Category a, PreArrow a) = Arrow a where
arr
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:55:07PM +0100, Tsuyoshi Ito wrote:
In a program, I have an arrow MyArr and a combinator called repeat of
the following type:
repeat :: Int - (Int - MyArr e a) - MyArr e a
My problem is that the code becomes messy when I use this combinator
inside the arrow
Tsuyoshi Ito tsuyoshi.ito.2...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I use combinators like repeat, which takes a plain function as
an argument, in the arrow notation in a more readable way? Or am I
trying to do an impossible thing?
To answer your question: Arrow notation has no support for what you
Dear Ertugrul,
Thank you for your input.
To answer your question: Arrow notation has no support for what you
want, so if you stick with it you will have to write the inner proc
explicitly.
Oh. I was afraid of that.
However: The code may look much nicer, if you use applicative style for
Hello,
In a program, I have an arrow MyArr and a combinator called repeat of
the following type:
repeat :: Int - (Int - MyArr e a) - MyArr e a
My problem is that the code becomes messy when I use this combinator
inside the arrow notation, and I am looking for a way to write the
code in a
10 matches
Mail list logo
