ApplicativeDo

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ApplicativeDo

Thomas Bereknyei
Now with AMP, is this worth revisiting? Why or why not?

-Tom

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ApplicativeDo

Adam Vogt
What part of applicative-quoters is broken for you? 0.1.0.8 compiles
on ghc-7.8.4 here, and [ado| a <- Just (); b <- Just 2; (a,b) |]
evaluates to Just ((),2) as it should.
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ApplicativeDo

Thomas Bereknyei
I guess it is not broken, just that it has no maintainer.

Regardless, is there any traction for an "ado" language extension? The ApplicativeDo proposal advocates for a "do" that automatically downgrades to Applicative, but that may be too much or powerful. Opt-in via "ado" might be the right answer.

In a somewhat related/unrelated question. Is there a mechanism to fork an Arrow into a separate thread? I would assume it would end up looking like:

forkArrow :: Arrow a => a b c -> Chan b -> Chan c -> IO ()
or perhaps :: Arrow a => a b c -> Chan b -> IO (Chan c)

Is there any way to manipulate the (Input, Output) pair as an arrow itself along with other arrows that have been "forked".

-Tom


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM, adam vogt <[hidden email]> wrote:
What part of applicative-quoters is broken for you? 0.1.0.8 compiles
on ghc-7.8.4 here, and [ado| a <- Just (); b <- Just 2; (a,b) |]
evaluates to Just ((),2) as it should.


_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users