Evan Laforge wrote:
I consider that a strength of the lens approach. If I say 'set
(a.b.c.d) 42 record', 'a', 'b' etc. don't have to be record fields, I
can swap them out for other lenses later on.
I can also easily precompose, e.g. 'setThis = a . b; setThat = b . c'
and encourage people to use
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.comwrote:
The nice part about the SEC functions is that
they compose as regular functions. Lenses are
super powerful in that they form a category.
Unfortunately using categories other than
functions feels a tad unwieldy
Oops, forgot my references
[1] Original post:
http://www.twanvl.nl/blog/haskell/cps-functional-references
[2] polymorphic update support: http://r6.ca/blog/20120623T104901Z.html
[3] another post about these:
http://comonad.com/reader/2012/mirrored-lenses/
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Ryan
On 2/08/2012, at 5:34 PM, Jonathan Geddes wrote:
Ouch! And that's not even very deeply nested.
Imagine 4 or 5 levels deep. It really makes
Haskell feel clunky next to `a.b.c.d = val`
that you see in other languages.
I was taught that this kind of thing violates the Law of Demeter
and that an
Isn't this exactly the problem solved by all the lens packages?
Current popular ones are fclabels [0] and data-lens [1].
[0] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/fclabels
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/data-lens
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.com
On 2 Aug 2012, at 09:25, Erik Hesselink wrote:
Isn't this exactly the problem solved by all the lens packages?
Current popular ones are fclabels [0] and data-lens [1].
[0] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/fclabels
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/data-lens
Not sure what all of
Ah yes - the joy of Haskell
It so easy to roll your own, rather than search to find someone else's
(better/more elegant) solution... :-)
On 2 Aug 2012, at 11:41, Erik Hesselink wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Butterfield
andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie wrote:
On 2 Aug
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Butterfield
andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie wrote:
On 2 Aug 2012, at 09:25, Erik Hesselink wrote:
Isn't this exactly the problem solved by all the lens packages?
Current popular ones are fclabels [0] and data-lens [1].
[0]
Richard O'Keefe Said:
Ouch! And that's not even very deeply nested.
Imagine 4 or 5 levels deep. It really makes
Haskell feel clunky next to `a.b.c.d = val`
that you see in other languages.
I was taught that this kind of thing violates the Law of Demeter
and that an object should not be
I'm new to Haskell, but I do like your idea.
I prefer this as a built-in feature because it will create a standard
way of doing this, making the question wich package should I use to
get mutatos? lens-foo, lens-bar, monad-lens, lens-lens-foo-bar, ...?
simply go away.
So, yes, I up-vote your idea
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Jonathan Geddes
geddes.jonat...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard O'Keefe Said:
Ouch! And that's not even very deeply nested.
Imagine 4 or 5 levels deep. It really makes
Haskell feel clunky next to `a.b.c.d = val`
that you see in other languages.
I was taught that
11 matches
Mail list logo
