Newest at the top
| 2026-01-08 22:42:02 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) peterbecich |
| 2026-01-08 22:41:43 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I've ranted about Num before here |
| 2026-01-08 22:41:23 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | so that's a low bar |
| 2026-01-08 22:41:21 +0100 | <EvanR> | most things people try to write a Num instance for are contrived xD |
| 2026-01-08 22:41:19 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Num was never principled or based in any way |
| 2026-01-08 22:41:08 +0100 | <EvanR> | (curiously) Foldable ended up being more principled and based than Num |
| 2026-01-08 22:40:32 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | but contrary to Foldable, where [a] is merely a common instance, such contrived Num instances are really contrived, I'd guess |
| 2026-01-08 22:40:09 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | there are probably contrived Num instances for which foldl' would be inappropriate |
| 2026-01-08 22:40:04 +0100 | <EvanR> | a long time ago |
| 2026-01-08 22:39:44 +0100 | <EvanR> | maybe, but there was a long thread on the mailing list defending the foldl version xD |
| 2026-01-08 22:39:09 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that one was probably just an oversight |
| 2026-01-08 22:38:35 +0100 | <jreicher> | Oww. How did that happen in the first place? |
| 2026-01-08 22:38:33 +0100 | <EvanR> | good |
| 2026-01-08 22:38:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 22:38:08 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it is, but that was fixed; sum is now defined using foldl' |
| 2026-01-08 22:36:26 +0100 | trickard_ | trickard |
| 2026-01-08 22:36:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | this is probably dumb |
| 2026-01-08 22:36:08 +0100 | <lambdabot> | sum = foldl (+) 0 |
| 2026-01-08 22:36:08 +0100 | <EvanR> | @src sum |
| 2026-01-08 22:36:03 +0100 | <EvanR> | however the situation with sum |
| 2026-01-08 22:34:48 +0100 | spew | (~spew@user/spew) (Quit: nyaa~) |
| 2026-01-08 22:34:01 +0100 | Milan_Vanca | (~milan@user/Milan-Vanca:32634) (Quit: WeeChat 4.7.2) |
| 2026-01-08 22:33:30 +0100 | <jreicher> | I agree it's good to have a sandbox of some kind for programmers to experience the consequences of laziness and how they can sometimes be avoided. |
| 2026-01-08 22:32:58 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 22:32:26 +0100 | <EvanR> | though* |
| 2026-01-08 22:32:15 +0100 | <EvanR> | considering how many utility functions other languages are sorely missing I am ok if haskell has 1 that is "useless", I'm arguing it's useful for pedagogical purposes |
| 2026-01-08 22:31:19 +0100 | jmcantrell_ | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell |
| 2026-01-08 22:30:31 +0100 | mulk | (~mulk@pd95143a6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) mulk |
| 2026-01-08 22:30:05 +0100 | <EvanR> | fold being for the special case where all possible folds result in the same answer (a monoidal fold) |
| 2026-01-08 22:30:04 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 22:30:01 +0100 | mulk | (~mulk@pd95143a6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 22:29:18 +0100 | <EvanR> | jreicher, on the subject of how many folds you need in Foldable... there's a huge number of other folding strategies other than left fold and right fold, just for a tree-like DS |
| 2026-01-08 22:26:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | I'm thinking of the various Writer monads |
| 2026-01-08 22:25:27 +0100 | <EvanR> | you have to understand it |
| 2026-01-08 22:25:23 +0100 | <EvanR> | the whole drama stems from haskell's laziness, which you can't really escape |
| 2026-01-08 22:25:01 +0100 | <EvanR> | we'd have like 10 different other foldl situations and the conversion would get kind of confusing |
| 2026-01-08 22:24:23 +0100 | <EvanR> | we spend a lot of time hating on foldl because we think we understand it and think it's completely useless. But if we didn't dwell on foldl so much, we might miss all the other things in the standard library which potentially blow up in your face and don't have real answers |
| 2026-01-08 22:24:12 +0100 | Vizious | (~bes@user/Vizious) (Quit: WeeChat 4.8.1) |
| 2026-01-08 22:21:55 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2026-01-08 22:18:08 +0100 | Square3 | Square |
| 2026-01-08 22:17:11 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-01-08 22:11:51 +0100 | <monochrom> | hehe |
| 2026-01-08 22:11:36 +0100 | <darkling> | That's the joke I was thinking of. |
| 2026-01-08 22:11:17 +0100 | <monochrom> | I think the mathematicians also have a joke along the line of "what's the anagram of Banach-Tarski" |
| 2026-01-08 22:10:30 +0100 | <monochrom> | haha |
| 2026-01-08 22:10:05 +0100 | <darkling> | monochrommonochrom. An anagram. :) |
| 2026-01-08 22:09:40 +0100 | <monochrom> | Oh haha there is also a Banach-Tarski one. :) |
| 2026-01-08 22:08:14 +0100 | <monochrom> | There is one that says "chop ... into pieces" or something like that. |
| 2026-01-08 22:08:06 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-50-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2026-01-08 22:07:45 +0100 | lambdabot | moulds monochrom into a delicous cookie, and places it in her oven |