Oh, I see Ross's trick. By quantifying over the domain range types, they
can later be specialized to analysis-time types (like circuit labels) or to
run-time types (like Boolean or Integer).
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
If you require the circuit to be
Hey Conal,
I have something (another circuits formulation) that's almost an arrow
but doesn't support arr.
Have you seen Adam Megacz's generalized arrows?
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~megacz/garrows/
-- Kim-Ee
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
If you
Thanks, Kim-Ee. Adam M's garrows look very useful for what I'm doing. --
Conal
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
Hey Conal,
I have something (another circuits formulation) that's almost an arrow
but doesn't support arr.
Have you seen Adam Megacz's
If you require the circuit to be parametric in the value types, you can
limit the types of function you can pass to arr to simple plumbing.
See the netlist example at the end of my Fun of Programming slides (
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/papers/fop.html).
I'm running into this same
Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I know it's a bit of an 'intentionally provocative' title, but with
the recent discussions on Arrows I thought it timely to bring this up.
Most of the conversion from arrow syntax into arrows uses 'arr' to
move components around. However, arr is
2011/11/1 Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com:
For example, I would love to be able to use the arrow syntax to define
objects of this type:
data Circuit a b where
Const :: Bool - Circuit () Bool
Wire :: Circuit a a
Delay :: Circuit a a
And :: Circuit (Bool,Bool) Bool
Or
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, I would love to be able to use the arrow syntax to define
objects of this type:
data Circuit a b where
Const :: Bool - Circuit () Bool
Wire :: Circuit a a
Delay :: Circuit a a
And ::
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/1 Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com:
Would you mind give me some examples on how you desribe real circuits
with that abstraction and, especially, an Arrow instance (even
imaginary one)?
Sure, here's a simple SR
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Paterson, Ross r.pater...@city.ac.ukwrote:
If you require the circuit to be parametric in the value types, you can
limit the types of function you can pass to arr to simple plumbing.
See the netlist example at the end of my Fun of Programming slides (
I know it's a bit of an 'intentionally provocative' title, but with the
recent discussions on Arrows I thought it timely to bring this up.
Most of the conversion from arrow syntax into arrows uses 'arr' to move
components around. However, arr is totally opaque to the arrow itself, and
prevents
Have you seen Adam Megacz's work on generalized arrows? I think he proposes
to kill arr and has done a decent amount of work on it.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I know it's a bit of an 'intentionally provocative' title, but with the
recent
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Ryan Ingram ryani.s...@gmail.com wrote:
The arrow syntax translation uses arr to do plumbing of variables. I think
a promising project would be to figure out exactly what plumbing is needed,
and add those functions to a sort of 'PrimitiveArrow' class. All of
This seems basically what I'm talking about, except even more hardcore. I
think mostly what I'm suggesting is that the GHC arrow preprocessor to
compile to something like generalized arrows, by default, with current
Arrows as a special case.
-- ryan
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Felipe
Ryan Ingram writes:
Most of the conversion from arrow syntax into arrows uses 'arr' to move
components around. However, arr is totally opaque to the arrow itself, and
prevents describing some very useful objects as arrows.
For example, I would love to be able to use the arrow syntax to
14 matches
Mail list logo
