Newest at the top
| 2024-09-21 09:27:09 +0200 | <Inst> | https://hackage.haskell.org/package/type-of-html |
| 2024-09-21 09:27:07 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | bonus points if you ensure that client code can only treat the thing as a Monoid, so that you can swap out the implementation later :) |
| 2024-09-21 09:26:53 +0200 | <Inst> | iirc blaze and lucid are builders |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:59 +0200 | <geekosaur> | but it definitely depends on what uou're doing |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:54 +0200 | <Inst> | wait, can you edit / replace Blaze / Lucid HTML types once they've been generated? |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:48 +0200 | <geekosaur> | that's what I was thinking |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:35 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | if you can arrange to always append at the front, and don't need to index into the thing, plain [] may be best |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:23 +0200 | <Inst> | well, i mean, it'll be converted to lazy bytestring |
| 2024-09-21 09:25:20 +0200 | <geekosaur> | cue xkcd 😛 |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:58 +0200 | <Inst> | i guess i'm doing yet another html / css library |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:54 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | i.e. what's the ratio between the number of times you read that list, and the number of times you modify it |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:43 +0200 | <Inst> | yes, which is why i'm thinking seq not vector |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:31 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | Inst: will you be appending to that list |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:06 +0200 | <Inst> | by the way, if I want to model an HTML object, is vector or seq a better application data structure for children / attributes? |
| 2024-09-21 09:24:06 +0200 | jle` | (~jle`@2603:8001:3b02:84d4:eb82:e687:8bae:8fb3) |
| 2024-09-21 09:23:59 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 09:23:36 +0200 | <geekosaur> | it's absolutely not unusual that I wake up 02:30-03:00 and am up for an hour or so 😞 |
| 2024-09-21 09:23:26 +0200 | jle` | (~jle`@2603:8001:3b02:84d4:6c44:9933:28ff:d264) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-09-21 09:23:24 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 09:23:09 +0200 | <geekosaur> | my sleep has been severely disturbed for longer than I've had the neck/arm issue |
| 2024-09-21 09:22:48 +0200 | <Inst> | since i thought you went to sleep |
| 2024-09-21 09:22:05 +0200 | <Inst> | geekosaur: you're STILl in pain? :( |
| 2024-09-21 09:19:02 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 09:17:46 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) |
| 2024-09-21 09:14:30 +0200 | <geekosaur> | (he used a plugin) |
| 2024-09-21 09:13:53 +0200 | <ski> | maybe we need `proc' notation that uses that |
| 2024-09-21 09:12:48 +0200 | <geekosaur> | but he went straight to Control.Category in the paper I dug up |
| 2024-09-21 09:11:29 +0200 | <ski> | probably, yeah |
| 2024-09-21 09:10:34 +0200 | <geekosaur> | "Compiling to Categories"? |
| 2024-09-21 09:10:17 +0200 | <ski> | didn't conal have some work on compiling categorical stuff ? |
| 2024-09-21 09:08:57 +0200 | <geekosaur> | and I'm not sure any of them is compatible with the few existing users of Arrow (e.g. Yampa) |
| 2024-09-21 09:08:18 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 09:08:11 +0200 | <geekosaur> | none of them seems to have much traction |
| 2024-09-21 09:08:03 +0200 | <geekosaur> | I have so far heard 3 proposals for how Arrow should be reworked |
| 2024-09-21 09:06:59 +0200 | <ski> | `arr' should be moved to a subclass |
| 2024-09-21 09:05:19 +0200 | <geekosaur> | (sorry, `flip (.)`) |
| 2024-09-21 09:04:26 +0200 | <geekosaur> | but it turned out that there was no real point in unifying (.) and (>=>), and while Arrow has the potential for static analysis, `arr` severely restricts what you can do with it |
| 2024-09-21 09:03:52 +0200 | hsw | (~hsw@2001-b030-2303-0104-0172-0025-0012-0132.hinet-ip6.hinet.net) |
| 2024-09-21 09:03:39 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 09:03:17 +0200 | hsw | (~hsw@2001-b030-2303-0104-0172-0025-0012-0132.hinet-ip6.hinet.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 09:03:15 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 09:02:40 +0200 | <geekosaur> | I think the original idea was abstraction over composition, that is, normal functions and monadic functions (wrapped in Kleisli) can be composed in the same way in an Arrow framework |
| 2024-09-21 09:00:45 +0200 | JamesMowery | (~JamesMowe@ip98-167-207-182.ph.ph.cox.net) |
| 2024-09-21 09:00:37 +0200 | caconym | (~caconym@user/caconym) |
| 2024-09-21 09:00:18 +0200 | JamesMowery | (~JamesMowe@ip98-167-207-182.ph.ph.cox.net) (Quit: Goodbye) |
| 2024-09-21 09:00:02 +0200 | <geekosaur> | some of which have proposed modified versions of Arrow |
| 2024-09-21 09:00:01 +0200 | caconym | (~caconym@user/caconym) (Quit: bye) |
| 2024-09-21 08:59:45 +0200 | <geekosaur> | however there are some FRP frameworks based on Arrows |
| 2024-09-21 08:59:29 +0200 | <geekosaur> | but they gave rise to Profunctor and Applicative |
| 2024-09-21 08:59:09 +0200 | <geekosaur> | Inst, Arrows are mostly a failed experiment |