On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org wrote:
Hi Edward,
Edward Kmett wrote:
It looks like there is a fairly strong effort to fix most of the most
egregious warts in the mtl.
btw, does this overhaul include adding Applicative instances,
perchance?
They are
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 03:13:19PM -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org wrote:
btw, does this overhaul include adding Applicative instances,
perchance?
They are already part of monads-fd and would, I presume, come along for the
G'day all.
Quoting Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de:
Do you realize at what level we are complaining?
Yes, we're complaining at the level of the frustrated idealist, which is
what many Haskell programmers are.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
On 8 July 2010 17:07, a...@spamcop.net wrote:
G'day all.
Quoting Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de:
Do you realize at what level we are complaining?
Yes, we're complaining at the level of the frustrated idealist, which is
what many Haskell programmers are.
So true... :-(
/me is still
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 13:48, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
mtl's advantages: wide pre-existing user base, etc.
As said, I don't think this is a valid argument. Windows has a much
Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de writes:
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
My point was, was that if you need to pick a monad transformer library
and you've never done any before, then some people are likely to
choose mtl because it's currently the most-used library, it comes
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de writes:
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
My point was, was that if you need to pick a monad transformer library
and you've never done any before, then some people are likely to
Hi Edward,
Edward Kmett wrote:
It looks like there is a fairly strong effort to fix most of the most
egregious warts in the mtl.
btw, does this overhaul include adding Applicative instances,
perchance?
Thanks,
Yitz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Fragmenting Hackage is bad. But on the other hand I don't see why I
should stick with the inconvenient mtl. Open source software is all
about choice, and as long as the mtl fails to provide the same
flexibility and convenience, I won't use it. Combined with the fact
that fixing it would
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
Fragmenting Hackage is bad. But on the other hand I don't see why I
should stick with the inconvenient mtl. Open source software is all
about choice, and as long as the mtl fails to provide the same
flexibility and convenience, I won't use it.
G'day all.
Quoting Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de:
In its highest level not fragmenting the user base means going back to
C++ and Windows.
Ha. You wouldn't say that if you were familiar with the current state
of C++ on Windows.
Since nobody has come out and admitted it, here's the real
a...@spamcop.net wrote:
Quoting Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de:
In its highest level not fragmenting the user base means going
back to C++ and Windows.
Ha. You wouldn't say that if you were familiar with the current state
of C++ on Windows.
Since nobody has come out and admitted it,
On 8 July 2010 13:36, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
To be honest, I don't know any strength of MTL compared to transformers
and monadLib. Actually even transformers is quite primitive compared to
monadLib. The only real advantage is that it has flipped run functions
and a built-in
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 13:36, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
To be honest, I don't know any strength of MTL compared to
transformers and monadLib. Actually even transformers is quite
primitive compared to monadLib. The only real advantage
On 8 July 2010 13:48, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 13:36, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
To be honest, I don't know any strength of MTL compared to
transformers and monadLib. Actually even transformers is
monadLib looks nice, indeed, but the major problem with using it resides in
the fact that most of the libraries on hackage use MTL.
Must be tedious to have to use two monad libraries at the same time...
2010/7/6 Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de
Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
monadLib looks nice, indeed, but the major problem with using it
resides in the fact that most of the libraries on hackage use MTL.
Must be tedious to have to use two monad libraries at the same time...
In general this is a minor problem. Note that when
Yes but, for instance, every library which provides monad transformers will
provides a MTL's MonadTrans instance, not a monadLib's MonadT instance.
And since a library hides its types internals, you cannot write the MonadT
instances yourself.
For instance, I was planning to translate a little
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but, for instance, every library which provides monad transformers
will provides a MTL's MonadTrans instance, not a monadLib's MonadT
instance. And since a library hides its types internals, you cannot
write the MonadT instances yourself.
For
I was wondering : wouldn't it be possible that things like BaseM be
implemented on top of MTL?
Couldn't just one develop a package, say mtl-missing, that would contain the
functionnalities of monadLib, but compatible with MTL?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering : wouldn't it be possible that things like BaseM be
implemented on top of MTL?
Couldn't just one develop a package, say mtl-missing, that would
contain the functionnalities of monadLib, but compatible with MTL?
I don't know whether
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering : wouldn't it be possible that things like BaseM be
implemented on top of MTL?
Couldn't just one develop a package, say mtl-missing, that would
contain the
Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to review the thread here:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2009-November/012833.html
The gist of it is, I would recommend sticking with MTL for right now,
but confining yourself to the portions of it that transformers +
monads-fd
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote:
You may want to review the thread here:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2009-November/012833.html
The gist of it is, I would recommend sticking with MTL for right
Gregory Crosswhite gcr...@phys.washington.edu wrote:
What is the current state of opinion regarding transformers versus
monadLib versus mmtl versus ... etc.? Transformers seems to be the
blessed replacement for mtl, so when is it worthwhile to use the
other libraries instead?
(It hadn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
