Newest at the top
2025-02-19 14:47:10 +0100 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-02-19 14:46:45 +0100 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@87-94-148-3.rev.dnainternet.fi) fp |
2025-02-19 14:45:48 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
2025-02-19 14:43:07 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) gehmehgeh |
2025-02-19 14:42:32 +0100 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@ip-037-201-240-075.um10.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2025-02-19 14:41:46 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
2025-02-19 14:41:24 +0100 | <Inst> | https://topos.institute/blog/2022-12-20-lenses-semi-monads/ |
2025-02-19 14:41:20 +0100 | <Inst> | it should be semimonad, not monadoid :( |
2025-02-19 14:41:13 +0100 | <Inst> | how embarrassing, i've forgotten |
2025-02-19 14:41:03 +0100 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) Inst |
2025-02-19 14:40:17 +0100 | TheCoffeMaker | (~TheCoffeM@user/thecoffemaker) TheCoffeMaker |
2025-02-19 14:40:00 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <alexfmpe> * guess |
2025-02-19 14:39:49 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <alexfmpe> Map I guess? it already has an Apply instance and I just join would be double lookup like "(->) e" |
2025-02-19 14:39:31 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-02-19 14:34:55 +0100 | Googulator13 | Googulator |
2025-02-19 14:34:35 +0100 | tomsmeding | wonders what interesting structures would become available if you drop the identity laws |
2025-02-19 14:33:43 +0100 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e7283f64718e6a656831e8a3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
2025-02-19 14:27:48 +0100 | akegalj | (~akegalj@141-136-246-173.dsl.iskon.hr) |
2025-02-19 14:25:34 +0100 | bitdex | (~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex) (Quit: = "") |
2025-02-19 14:24:56 +0100 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-02-19 14:22:45 +0100 | <Inst> | *returned value |
2025-02-19 14:22:32 +0100 | <Inst> | although tbh you CAN avoid right identity to some extent, simply by using the last monadic element, then <$ the returned element into it |
2025-02-19 14:22:27 +0100 | mange | (~user@user/mange) (Quit: Zzz...) |
2025-02-19 14:20:52 +0100 | <Inst> | i mean associative law of functor join without identity laws of pure/eta |
2025-02-19 14:19:24 +0100 | <ski> | right identity is for getting "monadic tail invokation" |
2025-02-19 14:19:15 +0100 | <Inst> | i've forgotten if i used the term correctly |
2025-02-19 14:18:55 +0100 | cstslrdg^ | (~cstslrdg@108.192.66.114) |
2025-02-19 14:18:45 +0100 | ski | 's forgotten what "monadoids" refer to |
2025-02-19 14:18:43 +0100 | sawilagar | (~sawilagar@user/sawilagar) sawilagar |
2025-02-19 14:18:12 +0100 | <Inst> | the one for left identity, at least, and implicitly the right identity to permit a return through a neutral element |
2025-02-19 14:17:38 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Morj> I like that it's similar to using a front-tick which is already idiomatic |
2025-02-19 14:17:30 +0100 | <ski> | which, Inst ? |
2025-02-19 14:17:11 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Morj> Does using var` lead to any ambiguities? To get "let a` = foo; a` = bar a`; a` = qux a` in ..." - mercury-style state variables |
2025-02-19 14:17:09 +0100 | <ski> | `let par {a = b; b = a + b} in ..a..b..' vs. `let seq {a = b; b = a + b} in ..a..b..' |
2025-02-19 14:16:45 +0100 | <Inst> | is this explanation of why monads instead of monadoids in the moggi papers? |
2025-02-19 14:16:32 +0100 | <ski> | .. i guess one could imagine `seq {...}' and `par {...}', although that'd snarf the names of those standard functions |
2025-02-19 14:15:01 +0100 | ski | notes that `rec' doesn't work in list comprehensions, even with `MonadComprehensions' enabled |
2025-02-19 14:14:14 +0100 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) Inst |
2025-02-19 14:11:12 +0100 | <ski> | there already is `do rec {x <- ..y..; y <- ..x..}; ..x..y..' |
2025-02-19 14:09:18 +0100 | ski | idly wonders what could be a reasonable concrete syntax for sequential vs. collateral binding, in Haskell |
2025-02-19 14:06:17 +0100 | atwm | (~andrew@19-193-28-81.ftth.cust.kwaoo.net) atwm |
2025-02-19 14:05:32 +0100 | AlexNoo_ | AlexNoo |
2025-02-19 14:05:06 +0100 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-02-19 14:04:19 +0100 | atwm | (~andrew@19-193-28-81.ftth.cust.kwaoo.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2025-02-19 14:03:06 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Morj> That's a cool feature |
2025-02-19 14:02:24 +0100 | <ski> | (so it generates a sequence of variables for you, basically) |
2025-02-19 14:01:52 +0100 | <ski> | <https://www.mercurylang.org/information/doc-latest/mercury_ref/Clauses.html#State-variables> |
2025-02-19 14:01:47 +0100 | <ski> | Mercury has a "State variable" notation, where you can type `foo(...,!X),bar(!X,...),baz(...,!X...)', meaning `foo(...,!.X,!:X),bar(!.X,!:X,...),baz(...,!.X,!:X,...)', which basically amounts to `foo(...,X0,X1),bar(X1,X2,...),baz(...,X2,X3,...)', where `X0' is the initial value of `!X', and `X3' is the final value of `!X'. see |
2025-02-19 14:01:18 +0100 | akegalj | (~akegalj@89-172-194-52.adsl.net.t-com.hr) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
2025-02-19 13:59:27 +0100 | atwm | (~andrew@19-193-28-81.ftth.cust.kwaoo.net) atwm |