Newest at the top
| 2024-12-29 00:39:35 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> ok right, I wasn't quite getting that in "m i j a", both "i" and "j" are indextypes |
| 2024-12-29 00:35:40 +0100 | <geekosaur> | AIUI the whole point is that the indexed monad tracks an initial and a final index. individual actions within it produce new "final" indexes which aren't the final index of the entire computation because the next action maps from the first "final" index to a new one |
| 2024-12-29 00:33:42 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-135-074.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2024-12-29 00:33:21 +0100 | <geekosaur> | there isn't much to think about, any more than it's worth thinking about 2+3+4 giving you an intermediate 5 |
| 2024-12-29 00:33:13 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> that makes more sense, ok ty |
| 2024-12-29 00:33:10 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> right ok |
| 2024-12-29 00:32:41 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> hm I'll think about the idea of discarding the intermediate index type, ty |
| 2024-12-29 00:32:01 +0100 | <geekosaur> | the initial state encodes i->j, then the action gives you j->k, meaning the result is i->k |
| 2024-12-29 00:30:30 +0100 | <geekosaur> | looks like a straightforward generalization of (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b, with an assumption that the action produces both a new value type and a new index type to go with it, and the result type encodes the initial and final index types while discarding the intermediate one (j) because it becomes k when the action is run |
| 2024-12-29 00:30:17 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-12-29 00:26:37 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-12-29 00:26:21 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> I'm reading "m i j a" as, the monad indexed by "i", such that "j" depends on "i" |
| 2024-12-29 00:26:13 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@pa49-185-30-217.pa.vic.optusnet.com.au) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-12-29 00:25:44 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-29 00:24:35 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> "(a -> m j k b) -> m i j a -> m i k b", the two last types makes sense, but the first type "(a -> m j k b)" I'm not too sure about |
| 2024-12-29 00:23:44 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> hm, anyone has some insight about why the indexed monad's "bind" has that type? |
| 2024-12-29 00:13:40 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-12-29 00:12:54 +0100 | sawilagar | (~sawilagar@user/sawilagar) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2024-12-29 00:11:07 +0100 | Xe | (~Xe@perl/impostor/xe) Xe |
| 2024-12-29 00:10:10 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2024-12-29 00:09:06 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-29 00:05:02 +0100 | cowboy8625 | (~cowboy@2605-4A80-7405-640-B51A-FA7D-9084-E360-dynamic.midco.net) |
| 2024-12-28 23:57:52 +0100 | <hololeap> | ok, because I didn't see any connection to resetT and shiftT, but I wasn't sure |
| 2024-12-28 23:56:53 +0100 | <geekosaur> | I want to say you've reinvented CPS, rather than ContT as such |
| 2024-12-28 23:56:53 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-12-28 23:56:16 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@pa49-185-30-217.pa.vic.optusnet.com.au) housemate |
| 2024-12-28 23:55:27 +0100 | <hololeap> | am I reinventing ContT or is this something else? |
| 2024-12-28 23:54:33 +0100 | <hololeap> | runLoop loop = loop (updateAndContinue loop) |
| 2024-12-28 23:54:29 +0100 | <hololeap> | runLoop :: UpdaterLoop m -> m () |
| 2024-12-28 23:54:22 +0100 | <hololeap> | I have this: UpdaterLoop m = m () -> m () |
| 2024-12-28 23:52:16 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-28 23:49:04 +0100 | bitdex | (~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex) bitdex |
| 2024-12-28 23:47:26 +0100 | prasad | (~Thunderbi@c-73-75-25-251.hsd1.in.comcast.net) |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:49 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> I'll give it a read ty |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:47 +0100 | <geekosaur> | even if it's about the mtl1 Writer |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:22 +0100 | <geekosaur> | the paper linked at the top of the haddock is probably a good reference |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:19 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> right ok I see |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:10 +0100 | <geekosaur> | roughly, yes |
| 2024-12-28 23:43:01 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> geekosaur: uh sorry which one is correct, that "listen" gives us an analog to the "State" monad? |
| 2024-12-28 23:42:54 +0100 | <geekosaur> | it means to run an action in Writer and accumulate the logs from it |
| 2024-12-28 23:42:32 +0100 | <geekosaur> | the second is correct, the first sounds a little weird |
| 2024-12-28 23:42:10 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> in fact "listen" should give us an analog to the "State" monad right? |
| 2024-12-28 23:41:26 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> "listen" should just be understood as a function to add to the current log the logs from some other Writer monad right? |
| 2024-12-28 23:40:05 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-12-28 23:39:31 +0100 | Xe | (~Xe@perl/impostor/xe) (Quit: ZNC 1.9.1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2024-12-28 23:39:01 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <thirdofmay18081814goya> anyone got examples of "pass" or "listen" with the Writer monadf/ |
| 2024-12-28 23:35:08 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-135-074.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-12-28 23:33:40 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-28 23:27:44 +0100 | Xe | (~Xe@perl/impostor/xe) Xe |
| 2024-12-28 23:22:36 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |