I currently work at the Radboud University where Clean is being developed. As
such, I use it daily. Coming from Haskell, I have to admit that I never really
got used to the let-before syntax, exactly for the reasons described in the
previous emails. However, it does have some merit. In combinati
y really like to see Haskell's dynamics system to become as powerful as Clean's; it also supports polymorphism, for example)On Jul 15, 2013, at 04:31 AM, "Richard A. O'Keefe" wrote: On 13/07/2013, at 11:27 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:- they then abandoned the Macintosh world forWind
Dear Cafe,
Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the `return` function
in Monad, what would be a "better" name for it? (for some definition of better)
N.B. I am _not_ proposing that we actually change the name of `return`. I do
currently have the opportunity to pick names
an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes
> uses "unit".)
>
> cheers
>
> chris
>
> On 08/06/2013 02:14 PM, J. Stutterheim wrote:
>> Dear Cafe,
>>
>>
>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the
on, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Christian Sternagel
> wrote:
> Dear Jurriën.
>
> personally, I like "lift" (which is of course already occupied in Haskell),
> since an arbitrary value is "lifted" into a monad. (The literature sometimes
> uses "unit".)
ady used in applicative, and has the
> motivation that it's embedding a pure value in some context. Since I
> don't know the details of your project, I don't know if you need two
> names (one for the applicative version, and one for the monadic
> version).
>
> Er
or Haskell libraries
(I am working with another language altogether), so don't fear ;)
- Jurriën
On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:46, Adam Gundry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/08/13 06:14, J. Stutterheim wrote:
>> Suppose we now have the opportunity to change the name of the
>> `retu
iate.
>
> On Aug 6, 2013 10:14 AM, "Tom Ellis"
> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote:
> > `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value...
>
> Why not?
>
> ___
> Haske
