Newest at the top
| 2025-10-15 18:36:06 +0200 | OftenFaded47 | (~OftenFade@user/tisktisk) OftenFaded |
| 2025-10-15 18:34:41 +0200 | gustrb | (~gustrb@191.243.134.87) |
| 2025-10-15 18:31:04 +0200 | <Leary> | dminuoso: You could use `A.do` with `QualifiedDo`, where `module A` provides `join` and `>>=` imposing `Unsatisfiable` constraints. |
| 2025-10-15 18:31:00 +0200 | mochie | (~mochie@93.124.228.5) (Quit: WeeChat 4.7.1) |
| 2025-10-15 18:29:02 +0200 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Quit: Leaving) |
| 2025-10-15 18:25:35 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | dminuoso was talking about optparse-applicative though |
| 2025-10-15 18:25:19 +0200 | <Leary> | tomsmeding: The `Applicative` could have a `Monad` instance you don't want to use. |
| 2025-10-15 18:23:22 +0200 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj |
| 2025-10-15 18:20:23 +0200 | chele | (~chele@user/chele) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-10-15 18:14:50 +0200 | kuribas` | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) (Quit: ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.3)) |
| 2025-10-15 18:11:27 +0200 | Square | (~Square4@user/square) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 18:11:12 +0200 | mochie | (~mochie@93.124.228.5) |
| 2025-10-15 18:08:06 +0200 | Square3 | (~Square@user/square) Square |
| 2025-10-15 18:06:00 +0200 | gustrb | (~gustrb@191.243.134.87) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 18:03:48 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 18:03:39 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | getting an error because doA can't manage to construct an Applicative expression for it, or getting an error because Monad is not satisfied -- how are these fundamentally different, apart from being potentially confusing to a newcomer? |
| 2025-10-15 18:03:25 +0200 | digitteknohippie | Digit |
| 2025-10-15 18:03:19 +0200 | Digit | digitteknohippie |
| 2025-10-15 18:02:54 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | dminuoso: how would doA help you? |
| 2025-10-15 17:58:14 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:cdf:654a:2a7f:261) |
| 2025-10-15 17:49:22 +0200 | Digit | (~user@user/digit) Digit |
| 2025-10-15 17:47:25 +0200 | Digit | (~user@user/digit) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 17:47:06 +0200 | Inline | (~inline@2a02:8071:57a1:1260:30a1:2a21:7e45:e8e4) (Quit: Leaving) |
| 2025-10-15 17:40:16 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:cdf:654a:2a7f:261) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2025-10-15 17:39:46 +0200 | GdeVolpiano | (~GdeVolpia@user/GdeVolpiano) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-10-15 17:39:31 +0200 | GdeVolpiano | (~GdeVolpia@user/GdeVolpiano) GdeVolpiano |
| 2025-10-15 17:38:52 +0200 | hsw | (~hsw@112-104-9-97.adsl.dynamic.seed.net.tw) hsw |
| 2025-10-15 17:38:33 +0200 | hsw | (~hsw@112.104.9.97) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-10-15 17:38:30 +0200 | GdeVolpiano | (~GdeVolpia@user/GdeVolpiano) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 17:37:09 +0200 | <dminuoso> | :) |
| 2025-10-15 17:36:57 +0200 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d75-159-126-101.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2025-10-15 17:36:56 +0200 | <int-e> | dminuoso: but "much doA about nothing" just isn't the same |
| 2025-10-15 17:36:31 +0200 | <ski> | what would the `doA' do differently ? |
| 2025-10-15 17:35:50 +0200 | <dminuoso> | Who knows, maybe neither are used - I should get a hackage copy at some point. |
| 2025-10-15 17:35:48 +0200 | <ski> | `ado' <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/applicative-quoters-0.1.0.8/docs/Control-Applicative-QQ-ADo.html> |
| 2025-10-15 17:35:27 +0200 | <dminuoso> | int-e: Something tells me that ado has more uses in hackage than doA. :-) |
| 2025-10-15 17:35:01 +0200 | <int-e> | . o O ( ado ) |
| 2025-10-15 17:34:40 +0200 | <ski> | i should try working a bit more on my TH implementation of my syntax |
| 2025-10-15 17:34:14 +0200 | <dminuoso> | I really want a doA. |
| 2025-10-15 17:34:00 +0200 | <dminuoso> | I've tried to use it as well because its less brittle than positional, but bitten over and over again with slightly nuanced versions and then ApplicativeDo would just break apart. :( |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:55 +0200 | <dminuoso> | Ah I see what you're getting at. |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:49 +0200 | <ski> | yes |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:42 +0200 | <int-e> | I think the "positional" variant would be Foo <$> makeF1 <*> makeF2 |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:30 +0200 | <ski> | [> MyRecord { foo = [<fooExpr>],bar = [<barExpr>] } <] -- my "(local) reflective effect syntax" |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:25 +0200 | <ski> | yes |
| 2025-10-15 17:32:01 +0200 | <dminuoso> | Sure, but then you're no longer picking ApplicativeDo for just RecordWildcards, but for whatever it is that you're doing. |
| 2025-10-15 17:31:38 +0200 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:da0:5a47:caff:fe78:33db) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2025-10-15 17:31:37 +0200 | <ski> | that doesn't help when you want to perform actions to generate the values of the fields, though |
| 2025-10-15 17:31:01 +0200 | <yahb2> | Foo {f1 = "foo", f2 = 2} |
| 2025-10-15 17:31:01 +0200 | <dminuoso> | % let f1 = "foo"; f2 = 2; in Foo{..} |