Devin Mullins wrote:
>
> As for the latter, the reason I hear most often is "I want to be able to
> use the language at my job."*
>
> -- snip --
> * This is somewhat odd, as the strong majority of vocal Rubyists /are/
> using it at their job.
>
Not without risk though. Their necks get wrung
一首诗 wrote:
>
> runReader (do { b <- Reader $ show; return b } ) -- This is the initial
> expression, it should equals "show"
>
> runReader (Reader $ show >>= \b -> return b) -- remove do notion
>
I'm not sure that's the right un-do-ization. It so happens that the
exponent monad ((->) r) a
If RAM was treated as an extension of non-volatile
storage instead of the other way round, we'd already
be there.
Put another way, would "suspending" program to
disk achieve the same results?
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>
> Something I've wanted to experiment with for a long time and
> never got r
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>
> On 8/17/07, Kim-Ee Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How much static evaluation do you want to see
>> in Haskell?
>
> I'd like to see as much static evaluation as is practically possible.
>
Yes but not in (the language form
ok-4 wrote:
>
> Someone mentioned the "Blow your mind" page.
> One example there really caught my attention.
> "1234567" => ("1357","246")
> foldr (\a ~(x,y) -> (a:y,x)) ([],[])
>
> I've known about lazy match since an early version of the Haskell
> report, but have never actually used it.
The compiler dumps are illuminating, thank you.
I'm afraid I don't always compile under -O. In fact I never
debug with -O. I see now what I'm missing.
(Pain, grief, despair.)
Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:50 -0700, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
>> A
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>
> On 8/16/07, Kim-Ee Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 'Course not. The (++) function like all Haskell functions is only a
>> /promise/ to do its job. What does "assembling at compile time"
>> mean here:
>>
>>
Aaron Denney wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-15, Pekka Karjalainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A little style issue here on the side, if I may. You don't need to use
>> (++) to join multiline string literals.
>>
>> text = "If you want to have multiline string literals \
>>\in your source code, y
Paul Hudak wrote:
>
> [I]n the one-of-many ways that I view monads, a monad is just a high-order
> function that abstracts away function composition. In particular, if I
> have an action f, and an action g, I can think of them as recipes, because
> I can combine them via f >>= g. It's only aft
Ronald Guida wrote:
>
> Here is the brief explanation I came up with:
> > Arrows and monads are abstract data types used to construct Domain
> > Specific Embedded Languages (DSELs) within Haskel. A simple arrow
> > provides a closed DSEL. A monad is a special type of arrow that
> > creates
Ronald Guida wrote:
>
> Given the question "What is a Monad", I would have to say "A Monad is
> a device for sequencing side-effects."
>
There are side-effects and there are side-effects. If the only
monad you use is Maybe, the only side-effect you get is a slight
warming of the CPU.
Dave Men
David Menendez wrote:
>
> This is probably because no one has found a compelling use case for
> comonadic-style programming in Haskell. There have been some
> interesting papers, such as "Comonadic functional attribute
> evaluation" by Uustalu and Vene, but nothing as compelling as Wadler's
> "M
Ronald Guida wrote:
>
> Here's my interpretation of the table:
>
> --
> Structure | Subject | Action| Verb | Result
> +--+++--
> function| a | a-
Brian Brunswick-5 wrote:
>
> g f ??? g ??? f
>
> application a a->b flip ($) b
> monad bind m a a->m b>>= m b
> comonad cobind w a w a->b=>> w b
> arrowarr a b arr b c >
Seth Gordon wrote:
>
> Functors are a generalization from lists to "things that can be mapped
> over" in general, and then monads are a generalization of functors.
>
Way to go! That way lies true co/monadic enlightenment. Put another way,
monads are no more about (only) IO/sequencing than fmap
Claus Reinke wrote:
>
> there is usually a way to interpret monadic structures built in
> this way (a 'run' operation of some kind).
>
The "run" operation of type (m a -> a) is the (comonadic) coreturn. Many
monads are almost comonads too, for a meaning of "almost" to be made
precise.
Claus
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
