Hello Brian,
Brian Hurt wrote:
[...]
So today's question is: why isn't there a Strict monad? Something like:
data Strict a = X a
instance Monad Strict where
( = ) (X m) f = let x = f m in x `seq` (X x)
return a = a `seq` (X a)
unless I am mistaken, this violates the first
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Brian Hurt bh...@spnz.org wrote:
First off, let me apologize for this ongoing series of stupid newbie
questions. Haskell just recently went from that theoretically interesting
language I really need to learn some day to a language I actually kinda
understand
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
First off, let me apologize for this ongoing series of stupid newbie
questions. Haskell just recently went from that theoretically interesting
language I really need to learn some day to a language I actually kinda
understand and can
2009/1/1 Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com:
So that's the answer: there already is a Strict monad. And an attempt to
make a lazier one strict just results in breaking the monad laws.
There is at least one transformer that will make a strict monad out of
a non-strict monad.
newtype CPS m a = CPS
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Menendez d...@zednenem.com wrote:
2009/1/1 Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com:
So that's the answer: there already is a Strict monad. And an attempt to
make a lazier one strict just results in breaking the monad laws.
There is at least one transformer
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Menendez d...@zednenem.com wrote:
newtype CPS m a = CPS { unCPS :: forall b. (a - m b) - m b }
I have heard this called the codensity monad (and it appears under that
name in
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:44 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Menendez d...@zednenem.com
wrote:
2009/1/1 Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com:
So that's the answer: there already is a Strict monad. And
an attempt to
make a
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Jonathan Cast jonathancc...@fastmail.fmwrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:44 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Menendez d...@zednenem.com
wrote:
2009/1/1 Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com:
So that's the
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Cast jonathancc...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:44 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
In my reply I missed the important consideration of the strictness of
(=), irrsepective of the values. While you can not force values to
be strict in a monad
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 17:03 -0500, David Menendez wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Cast jonathancc...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:44 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
In my reply I missed the important consideration of the strictness of
(=), irrsepective of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
