On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Paul Liu nine...@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't switching. It's selection. If fullTime decides to be
productive, then alterTime acts like fullTime. Otherwise it acts
like halfTime. If both inhibit, then alterTime
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
No, Netwire does things very differently. Note the total absence of
switching combinators. Where in traditional FRP and regular AFRP you
have events and switching in Netwire you have signal inhibition and
selection. AFRP
Ertugrul,
Do you have a conceptual writeup of Netwire anywhere? The only
documentation I've found are the API docs. I ask both out of
curiousity, and because I'm writing up background for a masters thesis
on FRP and I'd like to say something about Netwire.
2012/4/4 Paul Liu nine...@gmail.com:
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 04:03 +0200, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
As I see FRP it has three components: the basic concepts, the
underlying theory and the way the libraries actually work.
As far as I understand FRP (which is not very far at all) the
Peter Minten wrote:
The updated document, which now lives at
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/FRP_explanation_using_reactive-banana
contains a Making the example runnable section which shows how connect
the example with the outside world.
I have added a link from the reactive-banana project
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:15 +0300, Michael Snoyman wrote:
First you state that we shouldn't use `union` for the `ePitch` Event,
and then you used it for `bOctave`. Would it be more efficient to
implement bOctave as
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 02:30 +0200, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
I've been trying to get my head around Functional Reactive Programming
by writing a basic explanation of it, following the logic that
explaining something is the best way to understand
Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand this. Would it be correct to say that AFRP
shares the basic ideas of FRP in that it has behaviors and
events/signals and that the main difference comes from the way AFRP is
implemented?
Well, FRP is usually interpreted as
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:15 +0300, Michael Snoyman wrote:
First you state that we shouldn't use `union` for the `ePitch` Event,
and then you used it for `bOctave`. Would it be more efficient to
implement bOctave as someting like:
eOctave :: Event t (Int - Int)
eOctave =
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to get my head around Functional Reactive Programming
by writing a basic explanation of it, following the logic that
explaining something is the best way to understand it.
Am I on the right
Peter Minten wrote:
I've been trying to get my head around Functional Reactive Programming
by writing a basic explanation of it, following the logic that
explaining something is the best way to understand it.
Am I on the right track with this explanation?
I think so. Your explanation looks
Michael Snoyman wrote:
First you state that we shouldn't use `union` for the `ePitch` Event,
and then you used it for `bOctave`. Would it be more efficient to
implement bOctave as someting like:
eOctave :: Event t (Int - Int)
eOctave =
filterJust toStep $ eKey
where
Hi,
I've been trying to get my head around Functional Reactive Programming
by writing a basic explanation of it, following the logic that
explaining something is the best way to understand it.
Am I on the right track with this explanation?
Greetings,
Peter Minten
P.S. Sorry about the long
Peter Minten peter.min...@orange.nl wrote:
I've been trying to get my head around Functional Reactive Programming
by writing a basic explanation of it, following the logic that
explaining something is the best way to understand it.
Am I on the right track with this explanation?
You are
14 matches
Mail list logo
