Newest at the top
| 2025-04-11 01:39:37 +0200 | <EvanR> | it amounted to a function returning a thing to pass to the next function, and a string to pass into that function |
| 2025-04-11 01:39:19 +0200 | sayurc | (~sayurc@169.150.203.34) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-04-11 01:39:09 +0200 | sayurc_ | (~sayurc@169.150.203.34) sayurc |
| 2025-04-11 01:38:44 +0200 | <EvanR> | I didn't see the point of the Task datatype as stated |
| 2025-04-11 01:38:21 +0200 | <EvanR> | it does not |
| 2025-04-11 01:36:52 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:36:49 +0200 | <Guest87> | EvanR: I think your Task type needs to be `String -> IO (Either String Task)` (assuming recursive `type` worked) |
| 2025-04-11 01:35:48 +0200 | cipherrot | (~znc-user@user/petrichor) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:34:26 +0200 | <EvanR> | to get that a -> a -> a smaller |
| 2025-04-11 01:34:16 +0200 | <EvanR> | and my posted code can probably be golfed with some pointfree compositions |
| 2025-04-11 01:34:05 +0200 | L29Ah | (~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah) L29Ah |
| 2025-04-11 01:32:49 +0200 | jleightcap | (7bc4014b62@user/jleightcap) () |
| 2025-04-11 01:32:41 +0200 | <EvanR> | if it was just a bunch of IO actions in a list that needed to run, that's even less of a library, just sequence :: [IO a] -> IO [a] |
| 2025-04-11 01:32:19 +0200 | hattckory | (~hattckory@bras-base-toroon4524w-grc-30-70-27-118-207.dsl.bell.ca) |
| 2025-04-11 01:31:30 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-04-11 01:31:20 +0200 | <lambdabot> | Foldable t => (a -> a -> a) -> t a -> a |
| 2025-04-11 01:31:19 +0200 | <EvanR> | :t foldl1 |
| 2025-04-11 01:30:26 +0200 | <EvanR> | but in general "Tasks" sounds like they'd be running concurrently and might need to communicate with each other, and the async library is pretty nice there |
| 2025-04-11 01:30:02 +0200 | <EvanR> | hardly needs a library |
| 2025-04-11 01:29:55 +0200 | <EvanR> | my paste is the entirety of the problem afaiui |
| 2025-04-11 01:28:14 +0200 | <Guest87> | Are there any haskell libraries that implement whatever I am dealing with here? At one point I was re-learning the Cont monad, but this doesn't feel like Cont exactly |
| 2025-04-11 01:27:21 +0200 | <Guest87> | xD I am just making things hard for myself I guess |
| 2025-04-11 01:26:46 +0200 | <EvanR> | turning a non-empty [Task] into a Task using a Task -> Task -> Task... fairly "elegant" I'd say |
| 2025-04-11 01:26:28 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:25:10 +0200 | <Guest87> | EvanR yup, this is easy to do with a list, I am just being a dummy and feel like using a list means I haven't figured out the elegant solution |
| 2025-04-11 01:23:54 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:1c0d:6c97:349e:6228) |
| 2025-04-11 01:23:50 +0200 | L29Ah | (~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah) () |
| 2025-04-11 01:23:26 +0200 | <EvanR> | in my paste, addCont would simply be prepending another Task to the list |
| 2025-04-11 01:21:16 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:20:56 +0200 | <EvanR> | but since the code never runs in your case, that question doesn't need to be answered |
| 2025-04-11 01:20:25 +0200 | <EvanR> | but there is no result |
| 2025-04-11 01:20:12 +0200 | <Guest87> | Otherwise, Nothing means "nothing left to do" |
| 2025-04-11 01:20:05 +0200 | <Guest87> | In `addCont`, Nothing is where I end up passing on the result to the next task |
| 2025-04-11 01:19:59 +0200 | hattckory | (~hattckory@bras-base-toroon4524w-grc-30-70-27-118-207.dsl.bell.ca) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:19:40 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:1c0d:6c97:349e:6228) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:19:06 +0200 | <EvanR> | well you return Nothing so what goes on to the next program |
| 2025-04-11 01:18:48 +0200 | <EvanR> | Guest87, something like ... https://paste.tomsmeding.com/JF0HROx2 |
| 2025-04-11 01:18:39 +0200 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@91-159-69-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Quit: Leaving.) |
| 2025-04-11 01:18:24 +0200 | <Guest87> | Yea for now I am assuming I at least have (Task "identityProgram" startingInput (\t -> return Nothing)) |
| 2025-04-11 01:18:14 +0200 | <emojelly> | I guess this is part of why people use effectful these days? But my usage of Coroutine specifically precludes effectful, I think. |
| 2025-04-11 01:17:39 +0200 | <EvanR> | or is it never empty |
| 2025-04-11 01:16:56 +0200 | <EvanR> | Guest87, question, what is the "empty list" of tasks supposed to do |
| 2025-04-11 01:16:34 +0200 | <emojelly> | This is a bit of a bummer, because I was stupidly assuming that Monad Transformers were mostly "free" in terms of performance, at least in terms of just being part of the type, without much actual usage. But that does not seem to be the case at all. Even an IdentityT can wreak havoc if you e.g. fmap through it (i.e. actually follow transformer laws). |
| 2025-04-11 01:16:16 +0200 | j1n37- | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-04-11 01:15:01 +0200 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37 |
| 2025-04-11 01:14:55 +0200 | <emojelly> | My Monad/Monad Transformer, mixed in with the one from the test framework (Hedgehog), is quite an impressive layer of Coroutine, ExceptT, ReaderT, WriterT, Maybe, IdentityT... I know WriterT has a problem, but even if I try a more minimal example consisting just of Coroutine, IdentityT, and Either, just adding an IdentityT can make things multiple times slower. |
| 2025-04-11 01:14:55 +0200 | hattckory | (~hattckory@bras-base-toroon4524w-grc-30-70-27-118-207.dsl.bell.ca) |
| 2025-04-11 01:14:28 +0200 | <EvanR> | functions in haskell are blackboxes the only thing you do with them, other than pass them around, is apply them to an argument |
| 2025-04-11 01:13:27 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-04-11 01:13:04 +0200 | <Guest87> | Is there a proper name/term for the problem I am running into when I do it all with one Task? |