Newest at the top
2025-03-25 14:37:46 +0100 | <EvanR> | s -> [IO (a, s)] |
2025-03-25 14:37:17 +0100 | <EvanR> | so you're saying you can combine this monad with others |
2025-03-25 14:35:41 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) kuribas |
2025-03-25 14:35:19 +0100 | kuribas` | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) (Quit: ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.3)) |
2025-03-25 14:35:10 +0100 | <EvanR> | new NonDeterm a = NonDeterm { getPossibilities :: [a] } |
2025-03-25 14:35:05 +0100 | bliminse | (~bliminse@user/bliminse) bliminse |
2025-03-25 14:34:51 +0100 | <EvanR> | gratuitous newtype |
2025-03-25 14:34:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | lol |
2025-03-25 14:34:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | just ignore the GHC warning |
2025-03-25 14:34:08 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: if you put the 'empty' pattern-matching case last, i.e. after the Cons case, then it does work |
2025-03-25 14:32:32 +0100 | <EvanR> | probably for the best |
2025-03-25 14:32:24 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ah, no |
2025-03-25 14:32:19 +0100 | <EvanR> | but it's being pattern matched, does it work as a pattern |
2025-03-25 14:32:02 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and with an Alternative instance, it could even be 'empty' |
2025-03-25 14:31:49 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if you define Semigroup and Monoid instances then you can type 'mempty' instead |
2025-03-25 14:31:38 +0100 | <EvanR> | so eventually I just changed the constructor to Empty |
2025-03-25 14:31:34 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ah :p |
2025-03-25 14:31:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | I kept typing Empty into the definitions |
2025-03-25 14:31:19 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | what prevented "Nil"? |
2025-03-25 14:31:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | I couldn't call Empty "Nil" no matter how hard I tried. And I wanted to call this type NonDeterm but it was too long and numerous |
2025-03-25 14:30:40 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> yeah afaik, monad trans makes no sense without looking at the type definition, i don't think there's a simple rule to predict what the real construction is like until you see it |
2025-03-25 14:30:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | https://paste.tomsmeding.com/NAB9RiFP |
2025-03-25 14:29:09 +0100 | <EvanR> | but people are probably talking about the type constructors |
2025-03-25 14:29:06 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | just expand all the newtypes and write the underlying function directly, dispense with this discussion |
2025-03-25 14:28:56 +0100 | <EvanR> | more wrapping |
2025-03-25 14:28:53 +0100 | <EvanR> | x, [x], [[x]], [[[x]]] |
2025-03-25 14:28:41 +0100 | kh0d | (~kh0d@212.200.247.164) kh0d |
2025-03-25 14:28:35 +0100 | <EvanR> | because it sounds like values |
2025-03-25 14:28:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | I reject "wrapping" |
2025-03-25 14:28:18 +0100 | <EvanR> | MonadBaseControl would have you believe your "stack" is "based" on IO. But by the previous discussion your program underworld is hanging from the IO planetary crust! |
2025-03-25 14:28:15 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | IO is not special here |
2025-03-25 14:28:10 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | not just with IO, that goes for most (all?) monad transformers |
2025-03-25 14:27:53 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> i guess that's why people say monad transformers are confusing, because the type wrapping of IO doesn't follow the operational wrapping |
2025-03-25 14:27:41 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it's counterproductive to try to stretch it to its limits |
2025-03-25 14:27:27 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the physical analogy only goes so far |
2025-03-25 14:27:00 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and the "body" is on the right |
2025-03-25 14:26:50 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the "right-hand side" of `let x = a in b` is in the middle |
2025-03-25 14:26:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | it's underneath that's for sure |
2025-03-25 14:26:38 +0100 | kh0d | (~kh0d@212.200.247.164) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
2025-03-25 14:26:30 +0100 | <EvanR> | or tower |
2025-03-25 14:26:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | is the base inside or outside the building |
2025-03-25 14:26:12 +0100 | <EvanR> | (I think) |
2025-03-25 14:26:10 +0100 | <EvanR> | inside outside is also getting confused more when you get MonadBaseControl which calls the innermost "the base" |
2025-03-25 14:25:56 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> sorry |
2025-03-25 14:25:18 +0100 | <EvanR> | the IO type wraps the product type yes, as far as the types go |
2025-03-25 14:25:17 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | even if, operationally, things go weirdly inside out |
2025-03-25 14:25:06 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and as long as you keep the newtypes unexpanded, there's a clear outer/inner in your source text |
2025-03-25 14:25:03 +0100 | <EvanR> | "IO wraps the pair" ok now I'm losing it with the burrito analogy, I feel like that might be off the farm |
2025-03-25 14:24:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Liamzee: I agree re ridiculousness of inside/outside, but the original question was about intuition about monad transformer stacks _without_ expanding their definitions |
2025-03-25 14:24:40 +0100 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:da0:5a47:caff:fe78:33db) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |