Newest at the top
| 2024-04-28 23:39:10 +0200 | <EvanR> | doors |
| 2024-04-28 23:39:06 +0200 | <EvanR> | gifts, riddles, |
| 2024-04-28 23:38:43 +0200 | <EvanR> | all the best things come in threes |
| 2024-04-28 23:36:10 +0200 | <monochrom> | haha |
| 2024-04-28 23:35:53 +0200 | <mauke> | I wish my handlers were models |
| 2024-04-28 23:35:21 +0200 | <dolio> | Handlers are models, if I recall correctly. |
| 2024-04-28 23:35:19 +0200 | <ncf> | (that's why monads are spelt T everywhere) |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:45 +0200 | <mauke> | baby-step semantics |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:44 +0200 | <geekosaur> | don't amke me haul out Mac Lane |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:38 +0200 | <monochrom> | The "handler" part does not require a monad though; in fact it is not even required to be "algebraic". More concretely, for example Maybe: Just and Nothing are the algebraic part and where you require a monad, but the handler `maybe` is where you can map Maybe X to whatever Y you like; it is also not "algebraic". |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:29 +0200 | <ncf> | monads used to be called triples |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:26 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | more things in math are a triple than not |
| 2024-04-28 23:34:06 +0200 | <ncf> | triple |
| 2024-04-28 23:33:54 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | "why 'T'" "well, it's a theory" "it's a monad" "ok" "call it \mathcal M" "ok" |
| 2024-04-28 23:33:39 +0200 | michalz | (~michalz@185.246.207.217) (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) |
| 2024-04-28 23:33:33 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I was writing a paper with my PhD advisor and he wrote a part of the thing that talked about a monad; he wrote it \mathcal T |
| 2024-04-28 23:32:34 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | ah yes, I now remember mathematicians using those words |
| 2024-04-28 23:32:07 +0200 | <dolio> | IO is the signature or theory. The 'effects' are related to the generators, which would be like `getChar` for IO. At least in the literature. |
| 2024-04-28 23:31:35 +0200 | Square | (~Square@user/square) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2024-04-28 23:30:04 +0200 | <ncf> | that's what playgrounds are for |
| 2024-04-28 23:29:35 +0200 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2024-04-28 23:29:19 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | baby steps |
| 2024-04-28 23:28:52 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | Rembane: yay! |
| 2024-04-28 23:28:43 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I see |
| 2024-04-28 23:28:23 +0200 | <monochrom> | Right, Koka doesn't expose any monad. But you start postulating monads for semantics. |
| 2024-04-28 23:28:16 +0200 | <Rembane> | tomsmeding: I just saw your new version of the Haskell playground and I like it! |
| 2024-04-28 23:27:09 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | (I should read something about this topic before I go sprouting nonsense though) |
| 2024-04-28 23:26:34 +0200 | Feuermagier | (~Feuermagi@user/feuermagier) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2024-04-28 23:25:59 +0200 | cashew | (~cashewsta@65.17.175.150) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-04-28 23:25:47 +0200 | madeleine-sydney | (~madeleine@c-76-155-235-153.hsd1.co.comcast.net) |
| 2024-04-28 23:25:36 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | can't you define a system of effects-and-handlers, like some languages have (Koka? Never used it though), from first principles without involving a monad? |
| 2024-04-28 23:24:28 +0200 | <probie> | Can you have a useful implementation for algebraic effects which isn't a monad? I guess if you disallow effects (definition 2) from depending on each other, you can have something weaker that's still of use |
| 2024-04-28 23:24:09 +0200 | mreh | (~matthew@host86-160-168-68.range86-160.btcentralplus.com) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2024-04-28 23:20:57 +0200 | tomsmeding | doesn't actually know how the mathematical theory for this goes |
| 2024-04-28 23:20:50 +0200 | cashew | (~cashewsta@65.17.175.150) |
| 2024-04-28 23:20:27 +0200 | <monochrom> | I think all papers I read (OK, only two) presume monads for algebraic effects. I don't mean to say a programming language has to expose the monads. Just that they have monads behind. |
| 2024-04-28 23:19:19 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | "affect your effects using monad transformers" |
| 2024-04-28 23:17:34 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | s/are,/are/ |
| 2024-04-28 23:17:31 +0200 | <int-e> | using monads to great effect |
| 2024-04-28 23:17:03 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | but algebraic effect systems also do, and those are not necessarily monads (though they invariably are, in haskell) |
| 2024-04-28 23:14:57 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | monads allow you to perform effects (both definitions) |
| 2024-04-28 23:14:38 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | reading input is an effect (definition 1), and `getChar` is also an effect (definition 2) |
| 2024-04-28 23:14:16 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I would personally never call "IO" an effect, though |
| 2024-04-28 23:13:06 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I think so? |
| 2024-04-28 23:12:48 +0200 | <monochrom> | maybe they just say monad... |
| 2024-04-28 23:12:11 +0200 | <monochrom> | OK, maybe Maybe then. |
| 2024-04-28 23:11:39 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I have never seen a mathematician talk about reading input :) |
| 2024-04-28 23:11:37 +0200 | gorignak | (~gorignak@user/gorignak) |
| 2024-04-28 23:11:21 +0200 | <monochrom> | Ah, then what do mathematicians call the former? |
| 2024-04-28 23:11:05 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | the former if you're talking to a functional programmer |