Hello Gregory,
Tuesday, July 3, 2007, 1:02:44 AM, you wrote:
> Right, I read more about it and found this out. The 'main'
> function is apparently magical at runtime and allows you to break
i recommend you to read two htmls:
http://sigfpe.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monads-and.
Gregory Propf wrote:
> Right, I read more about it and found this out. The 'main' function is
> apparently magical at runtime and allows you to break the with pure
> functionality just once but since it can call other functions this allows
> for useful programs to be written.
There is more than
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 1:40:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Parsers are monadic?
Gregory Propf wrote:
> Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure
&
On Monday 02 July 2007, apfelmus wrote:
> apfelmus wrote:
> > class DiMonad m where
> > returnR :: a -> m e a
> > bindR :: m e a -> (a -> m e b) -> m e b
> >
> > returnL :: e -> m e a
> > bindL :: m e a -> (e -> m e' a) -> m e' a
> >
> > type TwoCont e a = (e -> R) -> (a ->
apfelmus wrote:
> class DiMonad m where
> returnR :: a -> m e a
> bindR :: m e a -> (a -> m e b) -> m e b
>
> returnL :: e -> m e a
> bindL :: m e a -> (e -> m e' a) -> m e' a
>
> type TwoCont e a = (e -> R) -> (a -> R) -> R
>
> A final question remains: does the dimonad a
class Monad m => MonadError e m | m -> e where
throwError :: e -> m a
catchError :: m a -> (e -> m a) -> m a
..
power of TwoCont? I mean, it still seems like there's an operation
missing that supplies new left and right continuations at once.
i guess, instead of one DiMonad with two sets
Paul Hudak wrote:
>
>readFile :: Name -> FailCont -> StrCont -> Behaviour
>
> Here StrCont was the success continuation, which took a string (the file
> contents) as argument. I rather liked the flexibility that this offered
> -- since I/O errors were fairly common, it made sense to give succ
Gregory Propf wrote:
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure
functional monads.
Actually, it's stronger than that. All monads are pure functional, even
IO. Haskell is an entirely 100% pure functional language[*]. The IO
monad allows you to build up, in a pure, refere
On Sunday 01 July 2007 09:34, Gregory Propf wrote:
> Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure functional
> monads.
Neither did i; the general impression i'd got after almost a year of trying to
learn Haskell was: "Monad Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more
wretche
Thanks, that was helpful. I didn't realize that there were pure functional
monads.
--
"Monadic" just means a calculation using a mathematical structure
called a monad. All impure calculations in Haskell are monadic, but
not all monadic cal
First post. I'm a newbie, been using Haskell for about a
week and love it. Anyway, this is something I don't
understand. Parsers are monadic. I can see this if the
parser is reading from an input stream but if there's just a
block of text can't you just have the parser call itself
recursively feed
Eric yahoo.com> writes:
> Looks as if others may be answering questions you didn't ask.
I should read more carefully before posting: "Big Chris" did answer your
question, though phrased differently than I did.
--Eric
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Gregory Propf yahoo.com> writes:
> First post. I'm a newbie, been using Haskell for about a
> week and love it. Anyway, this is something I don't
> understand. Parsers are monadic. I can see this if the
> parser is reading from an input stream but if there's just a
> block of text can't you just
13 matches
Mail list logo
