Newest at the top
2025-05-08 20:22:11 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | because that's the only function that produces a Fr without taking yet another callback |
2025-05-08 20:21:54 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | hellwolf: if you write to a Port multiple times, you do that in successive callbacks, and the returned r is still from the innermost level where there is necessarily a 'finish' |
2025-05-08 20:21:15 +0200 | Guest48 | (~Guest48@104.156.111.174) |
2025-05-08 20:19:59 +0200 | <hellwolf> | pardon me, if I brain farted. I am multitasking :/ |
2025-05-08 20:19:14 +0200 | <hellwolf> | which also returns the value, which one do you return? |
2025-05-08 20:18:51 +0200 | <hellwolf> | simplest API: write to a "storage" location multiple times with (+ 1) |
2025-05-08 20:15:53 +0200 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj |
2025-05-08 20:13:47 +0200 | Frostillicus | (~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-56.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) |
2025-05-08 20:13:23 +0200 | <hellwolf> | but I am following some hunch |
2025-05-08 20:13:15 +0200 | <hellwolf> | there is not an extensive set of API, hard for me to think of all cases. |
2025-05-08 20:13:05 +0200 | dofsyl^ | (~dofsyl@50.168.231.214) |
2025-05-08 20:12:56 +0200 | <hellwolf> | if I may get back to the Fr topic, I think there is still a hole, since you can have a port-based API using the same Port multiple times within the same cps callback, and that port API also returns a Fr, which Fr is correct to return? |
2025-05-08 20:12:08 +0200 | Frostillicus | (~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-56.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2025-05-08 20:10:39 +0200 | kuribas | (~user@ptr-17d51eo8yjf3h7nzszs.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-05-08 20:10:34 +0200 | Digitteknohippie | Digit |
2025-05-08 20:09:50 +0200 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2025-05-08 20:09:08 +0200 | j1n37- | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37 |
2025-05-08 20:02:43 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | this multi-line left-hand side is just awful |
2025-05-08 20:02:35 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | if you have layout suggestions for that D[case] equation, I'm all ears |
2025-05-08 20:01:54 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | the neatest presentation of the code transformation, IMO, is in https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3632878 figure 2 |
2025-05-08 20:01:30 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | it's on the lambda calculus now if you look at later versions |
2025-05-08 20:00:59 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.15776v2 section 9.2, the typesetting/layout doesn't help |
2025-05-08 20:00:27 +0200 | Frostillicus | (~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-56.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) |
2025-05-08 20:00:20 +0200 | <EvanR> | that's why it's past tense |
2025-05-08 20:00:06 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | the combinators were unreadable |
2025-05-08 19:59:46 +0200 | <EvanR> | lol |
2025-05-08 19:59:43 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | wouldn't sell as well, though |
2025-05-08 19:59:34 +0200 | <EvanR> | you could called it HAD combinators |
2025-05-08 19:59:07 +0200 | manwithluck | (~manwithlu@2a09:bac5:5081:2dc::49:f6) manwithluck |
2025-05-08 19:58:47 +0200 | Frostillicus | (~Frostilli@pool-71-174-119-56.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2025-05-08 19:58:41 +0200 | <EvanR> | good one |
2025-05-08 19:58:35 +0200 | <EvanR> | HAD |
2025-05-08 19:58:27 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | it HAD combinators |
2025-05-08 19:58:23 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | but we did away with the combinators |
2025-05-08 19:58:19 +0200 | manwithluck | (~manwithlu@2a09:bac5:5081:2dc::49:f6) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-05-08 19:58:19 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | there's definitely a big homomorphism, and it's definitely automatic differentiation |
2025-05-08 19:58:19 +0200 | <EvanR> | HA |
2025-05-08 19:58:18 +0200 | tzh | (~tzh@c-76-115-131-146.hsd1.or.comcast.net) tzh |
2025-05-08 19:58:00 +0200 | <EvanR> | so you're saying it's not even combinatory, or differentiation |
2025-05-08 19:57:21 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | except that there aren't even any combinators any more |
2025-05-08 19:57:14 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | combinatory homomorphic automatic differentiation |
2025-05-08 19:57:05 +0200 | <EvanR> | EXPLAIN |
2025-05-08 19:56:59 +0200 | <EvanR> | CHAD |
2025-05-08 19:56:29 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: damn, I should have replied "but not as smooth as CHAD" |
2025-05-08 19:53:15 +0200 | <EvanR> | ok makes sense |
2025-05-08 19:52:58 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | because Int is discrete :) |
2025-05-08 19:52:51 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | in the sense of AD, I can differentiate a function Int -> Int just fine: its derivative is trivial, () -> () |
2025-05-08 19:52:36 +0200 | <EvanR> | pretty smooth as in "I'm pretty sure..." |
2025-05-08 19:52:17 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: the one does not imply the other |
2025-05-08 19:52:06 +0200 | <EvanR> | differentiates most of haskell 98. So haskell 98 is differentiable, i.e. pretty smooth |