PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| David Menendez
| Sent: 06 December 2005 07:13
| To: Scherrer, Chad
| Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
| Subject: RE: [Haskell-cafe] Re: :t main
|
| Scherrer, Chad writes:
|
| From: Cale Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| See:
| http
I wrote:
| My guess is that comonadic IO would look more like dataflow
| programming.
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
I've not been following this thread, but I wanted to check: you do
know about Tarmo Uustalu's stuff about comonads, don't you?
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ekarttun/comonad/
Scherrer, Chad writes:
From: Cale Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
See:
http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2003-January/003794.html
The OI comonad as previously envisioned breaks referential
transparency. I/O just doesn't seem to be something which one
can easily do
See: http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2003-January/003794.html
The OI comonad as previously envisioned breaks referential
transparency. I/O just doesn't seem to be something which one can
easily do comonadically, since once coeval/extract is applied, you're
back to plain values, and
From: Cale Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
See:
http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2003-January/003794.html
The OI comonad as previously envisioned breaks referential
transparency. I/O just doesn't seem to be something which one
can easily do comonadically, since once
