2025/04/16

Newest at the top

2025-04-16 16:00:16 +0200Digitteknohippie(~user@user/digit) Digit
2025-04-16 15:59:13 +0200acidjnk(~acidjnk@p200300d6e71c4f4138f4856942b014fc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) acidjnk
2025-04-16 15:57:31 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2025-04-16 15:56:33 +0200 <ski> that's implied, implicit, due to them being methods of `Monad m', here
2025-04-16 15:56:18 +0200 <ski> note that this does not mention any `Monad => ' in the type signatures of the methods here
2025-04-16 15:56:10 +0200 <lambdabot> fail :: String -> m a
2025-04-16 15:56:08 +0200 <lambdabot> return :: a -> m a
2025-04-16 15:56:06 +0200 <lambdabot> (>>) :: m a -> m b -> m b
2025-04-16 15:56:06 +0200 <lambdabot> (>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
2025-04-16 15:56:06 +0200 <lambdabot> -- Note: Applicative wasn't a superclass before GHC 7.10
2025-04-16 15:56:06 +0200 <lambdabot> class Applicative m => Monad m where
2025-04-16 15:56:05 +0200 <ski> @src Monad
2025-04-16 15:55:48 +0200 <ski> ah, imho you should also remove the remaining `Monad m => '
2025-04-16 15:55:43 +0200JuanDaugherty(~juan@user/JuanDaugherty) JuanDaugherty
2025-04-16 15:55:11 +0200 <ski> (you also changed one `b' to `l', for unclear reasons)
2025-04-16 15:54:47 +0200 <ski> (and then there's the issue with `s0' and `s1' in the signature for `(<*>)')
2025-04-16 15:54:23 +0200 <bwe> ok, let me try to get it right :).
2025-04-16 15:53:49 +0200 <ski> after `::', you're writing types. `MkState' is not a type, it does not belong there
2025-04-16 15:53:20 +0200 <ski> i still would like you to remove all mentions of `MkState ' from the type signatures
2025-04-16 15:52:49 +0200 <ski> this last definition of `(>>=)' is fine
2025-04-16 15:52:47 +0200amadaluzia_(~amadaluzi@user/amadaluzia) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2025-04-16 15:52:46 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-04-16 15:52:42 +0200 <ski> yes
2025-04-16 15:52:31 +0200 <bwe> Instance Type Signatures were a good idea btw.
2025-04-16 15:52:01 +0200 <ski> (good that you added brackets around `<*>', in the type signatures. was wondering whether i had to point that out)
2025-04-16 15:51:17 +0200 <ski> -- fmap :: (a -> b) -> State (s -> (a, s)) -> State (s -> (b, s))
2025-04-16 15:51:16 +0200 <ski> is not any better than
2025-04-16 15:51:12 +0200 <ski> -- fmap :: (a -> b) -> MkState (s0 -> (a, s1)) -> MkState (s0 -> (l, s1))
2025-04-16 15:50:57 +0200amadaluzia(~amadaluzi@user/amadaluzia) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-04-16 15:50:25 +0200 <ski> the definition of `(>>=)' is still not right
2025-04-16 15:49:50 +0200 <bwe> ski: how are the type signatures now?
2025-04-16 15:49:35 +0200 <bwe> [exa]: >>= is now defined, incorporating s1
2025-04-16 15:48:57 +0200 <ski> MkState :: (s -> (a,s)) -> State s a
2025-04-16 15:48:45 +0200 <ski> which you can abbreviate as
2025-04-16 15:48:32 +0200 <ski> in symbols, if `x :: s -> (a,s)', then `MkState x :: State s a'
2025-04-16 15:48:06 +0200 <ski> what this (BNF-inspired) notation *actually* means, is that if `x' has type `s -> (a,s)', then `MkState x' has type `State s a'
2025-04-16 15:47:20 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) dutchie
2025-04-16 15:47:19 +0200 <ski> this notation does not mean that the type `State s a' is equal to the "type" `MkState (s -> (a, s))' (this is not a type)
2025-04-16 15:47:02 +0200dutchie(~dutchie@user/dutchie) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-04-16 15:46:42 +0200 <ski> here is what's confusing
2025-04-16 15:46:34 +0200 <ski> newtype State s a = MkState (s -> (a, s))
2025-04-16 15:46:33 +0200 <ski> presumably the notation
2025-04-16 15:46:15 +0200 <ski> `MkState' is value-level (a data constructor), it's not type-level. so it makes no sense to mention it in the type signature
2025-04-16 15:45:36 +0200 <ski> this makes no sense
2025-04-16 15:45:32 +0200 <ski> -- (>>=) :: Monad m => MkState (s -> (a, s)) -> (a -> MkState (s -> (b, s))) -> MkState (s -> (b, s))
2025-04-16 15:45:29 +0200 <ski> ah, you updated it
2025-04-16 15:44:49 +0200 <ski> the definition of `(>>=)' isn't quite correct, but i guess you knew that
2025-04-16 15:42:07 +0200euleritian(~euleritia@dynamic-176-002-178-231.176.2.pool.telefonica.de)
2025-04-16 15:41:56 +0200 <ski> `fmap :: (a -> b) -> (s -> (a,s)) -> (s -> (b,s))' also, strictly speaking, isn't correct. but it's the type signature you'd get, if you were able to use `type State s a = (s -> (a,s))'
2025-04-16 15:41:55 +0200euleritian(~euleritia@ip5f5ad695.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)