On 24/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cale Gibbard:
>
> > x f does perhaps make more sense, especially with the current
> > categorical view of functions, but there would have to be a really
> > hugely good reason to change notation, as almost all current work puts
> > things
Cale Gibbard:
x f does perhaps make more sense, especially with the current
categorical view of functions, but there would have to be a really
hugely good reason to change notation, as almost all current work puts
things the other way around.
"Almost all"?
Well, excluding the Smalltalkers, peo
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 21:21 -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
. . .
> Hmm, which edition? My copy (5th ed.) uses the ordinary notation: f(x).
>
> x f does perhaps make more sense, especially with the current
> categorical view of functions, but there would have to be a really
> hugely good reason to c
On 23/11/05, Scherrer, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Interesting note: in Richard Bird and Oege de Moor, _Algebra
> > of Programming_, pp. 2-3, the authors write
> >
> >As a departure from tradition, we write "f : A <- B" rather than
> >"f : B
Bill Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting note: in Richard Bird and Oege de Moor, _Algebra
> of Programming_, pp. 2-3, the authors write
>
>As a departure from tradition, we write "f : A <- B" rather than
>"f : B -> A" to indicate the source and target types associated
>wit
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 17:47 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
. . .
> Why is there no (<<) and why is (=<<) not the default? The order of 'do
> {a;b;c}' is compatible with that of (>>). So we have the fundamental
> conflict, that usually function application is from right to left, but
> inte
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 08:55 -0800, Scherrer, Chad wrote:
. . .
> I see. I like the argument order also, since it so nicely reflects
> mathematical notation. But I do think there's a place for (flip ($)) and
> (flip (.)). The problem is that the assignment of fixities is much more
> subtle and re
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:01:07AM -0800, Scherrer, Chad wrote:
> So I think of the types as being
> grep "." *.hs :: String
> wc :: String -> Int -- ok, not really, but it shows the point better.
Every unix program has a standard input, even if it doesn't use it, so
I would rather give this typ
Udo Stenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The unix pipe is actually function composition. Its argument
> (standard
> input) isn't explicitly mentioned
Then it seems Unix must overload the "|" operator. I typically use it to
do things like
grep "." *.hs | wc
So I think of the types as being
gr
Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to say, that the order of symbols for ($), (.) and
> function application is consistent. This is a fine thing. I
> think that shall not be distroyed by giving ($) and (.)
> reversed argument order.
I see. I like the argument order also,
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Scherrer, Chad wrote:
Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Since
(a . b) x
a $ b x
a (b x)
are equivalent, do you also want to reverse function and
argument in order to match argument order of . and $ ?
That is
x (b . a)
x b $ a
(x b) a
?
I'm sor
Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since
> (a . b) x
> a $ b x
> a (b x)
>
> are equivalent, do you also want to reverse function and
> argument in order to match argument order of . and $ ?
>
> That is
> x (b . a)
> x b $ a
> (x b) a
> ?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I und
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Udo Stenzel wrote:
Scherrer, Chad wrote:
Maybe my point wasn't clear. Of course this idea of comparing lazy
evaluation to Unix pipes is very old (long before July 2004, I'm sure).
The point I'm making is that there is an old idea that may be underused.
It is, and only be
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:17:25AM +0100, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> infixl 2 \|
> (\|) = flip (.) -- though I'm using (&)
>
> The unix pipe becomes (filter ("foo" `isPrefixOf`) \| sort \| nub) or
> something, which is rather neat, and (#) is used to call "member
> functions", as in
Why not use Contro
Scherrer, Chad wrote:
> Maybe my point wasn't clear. Of course this idea of comparing lazy
> evaluation to Unix pipes is very old (long before July 2004, I'm sure).
> The point I'm making is that there is an old idea that may be underused.
It is, and only because (.) is defined all wrong!
The uni
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:09:40PM -0800, Scherrer, Chad wrote:
> (\|) = flip ($) -- (#) seems to me too pretty for other purposes to use
> it here.
> infixl 0 \| -- Again, why can't this be negative or Fractional??
I have a ? operator that does the same thing. Next time I use it I'll
check if
"Albert Lai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I offer a simpler, more direct, and pre-existing correspondence
between a functional
> programming construct and unix pipes:
Maybe my point wasn't clear. Of course this idea of comparing lazy
evaluation to Unix pipes is very old (long before July 2004,
I offer a simpler, more direct, and pre-existing correspondence
between a functional programming construct and unix pipes:
http://www.vex.net/~trebla/weblog/pointfree.html
"Scherrer, Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still trying to settle on a "feel" for good programming style in
> Hask
18 matches
Mail list logo
