Newest at the top
| 2025-09-29 14:06:18 +0200 | <lambdabot> | error: parse error on input ‘->’ |
| 2025-09-29 14:06:17 +0200 | <yin> | :t liftA2 @((->) _) |
| 2025-09-29 14:06:03 +0200 | <[exa]> | yin: what's wrong with (+) <$> Just 1 <*> Just 2 ? |
| 2025-09-29 14:05:20 +0200 | <yin> | in the language J, (h f g) is (liftA2 f h g), a "monadic fork" they call it, as a basic syntax feature, which is GREAT |
| 2025-09-29 13:59:56 +0200 | <[exa]> | as in, it's not gonna be a pattern without some extra work, but you can stash it somewhere in guards: | Just arg <- preview (prefixed "hahaha") arg = ... |
| 2025-09-29 13:56:28 +0200 | <[exa]> | chromoblob: you can do that pretty well with prisms |
| 2025-09-29 13:56:01 +0200 | <chromoblob> | i also want pattern syntax ("abc" ++ s) - like n+k patterns, but for strings |
| 2025-09-29 13:55:50 +0200 | <yin> | [exa]: at least that wouldn't trip markdown up |
| 2025-09-29 13:55:10 +0200 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) divlamir |
| 2025-09-29 13:55:08 +0200 | [exa] | wishes for back-backtick, the foretick, like ´ but worse |
| 2025-09-29 13:54:59 +0200 | <merijn> | In practice I find it a nonissue, since you can trivially locally bind it infix for readability |
| 2025-09-29 13:54:48 +0200 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-09-29 13:54:24 +0200 | <merijn> | chromoblob: That'd be nice, but thinking about ramification on parsing makes me throw that right out :p |
| 2025-09-29 13:53:57 +0200 | <[exa]> | chromoblob: parser developers wish for backtick disambiguation tools |
| 2025-09-29 13:50:59 +0200 | <chromoblob> | i want following syntax: Just 1 `(liftA2 (+))` Just 2 |
| 2025-09-29 13:46:33 +0200 | <yin> | not because of the ` symbol but because of its semantics |
| 2025-09-29 13:45:58 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:5d4:dfa6:7d7:2af3) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2025-09-29 13:44:38 +0200 | <yin> | i don't care which symbols we use, as long as it's consistent. in the case of `on`, the use of `` i find it's inelegant |
| 2025-09-29 13:42:32 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2025-09-29 13:42:09 +0200 | <yin> | programming languages at least |
| 2025-09-29 13:41:47 +0200 | <yin> | ... "logical languages"? |
| 2025-09-29 13:39:45 +0200 | <yin> | sshine: i am vehemently agains the idea that logic languages should emulate natural language |
| 2025-09-29 13:38:50 +0200 | <yin> | so we need the $ |
| 2025-09-29 13:38:15 +0200 | <yin> | in my mind, we would ideally bind the infix operator more tightly than function application, but that's not possible |
| 2025-09-29 13:37:39 +0200 | <lambdabot> | Just 3 |
| 2025-09-29 13:37:37 +0200 | <yin> | > (+) `liftA2` (Just 1) $ (Just 2) |
| 2025-09-29 13:35:17 +0200 | Lord_of_Life | (~Lord@user/lord-of-life/x-2819915) Lord_of_Life |
| 2025-09-29 13:33:37 +0200 | Lord_of_Life | (~Lord@user/lord-of-life/x-2819915) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-09-29 13:28:52 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:fe2c:68a3:b199:389f) |
| 2025-09-29 13:28:39 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) |
| 2025-09-29 13:26:34 +0200 | Unicorn_Princess | (~Unicorn_P@user/Unicorn-Princess/x-3540542) Unicorn_Princess |
| 2025-09-29 13:22:41 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2025-09-29 13:22:24 +0200 | Unicorn_Princess | (~Unicorn_P@user/Unicorn-Princess/x-3540542) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-09-29 13:19:10 +0200 | <sshine> | yin, at least `on` reads nicely. |
| 2025-09-29 13:18:06 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-09-29 13:13:15 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2025-09-29 13:09:40 +0200 | <yin> | maybe you're right after all |
| 2025-09-29 13:09:31 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2025-09-29 13:08:21 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) chromoblob\0 |
| 2025-09-29 13:08:00 +0200 | <merijn> | Leary: I mean, that $ and & hack is approximately infinitely less readable than the prefix `liftA2` call, so I would argue no, it's also 2 operators + 1 a function, not a single infix thing :p |
| 2025-09-29 13:08:00 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-09-29 13:06:24 +0200 | <Leary> | It worked, didn't it? |
| 2025-09-29 13:06:11 +0200 | <merijn> | And if you're gonna bind a name, then you can easily to whatever infix you want |
| 2025-09-29 13:05:55 +0200 | <lambdabot> | Just 5 |
| 2025-09-29 13:05:54 +0200 | <merijn> | > let (☃) = liftA2 (+) in Just 2 ☃ Just 3 |
| 2025-09-29 13:05:29 +0200 | justache | (~justache@user/justache) (bye?) |
| 2025-09-29 13:05:21 +0200 | <merijn> | You have to bind the partial application to a name, then |
| 2025-09-29 13:05:01 +0200 | <merijn> | Leary: Right, but that can't be valid Haskell to begin with |
| 2025-09-29 13:04:48 +0200 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2025-09-29 13:04:47 +0200 | <lambdabot> | Just 3 |