On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:31:36 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Gregory Ewing :
>
> > Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >> This suggests even the promoters of functional programming
> >> intuitively prefer imperative programming, but that's ok as long as
> >> it's all functional under the hood.
Gregory Ewing :
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> This suggests even the promoters of functional programming
>> intuitively prefer imperative programming, but that's ok as long as
>> it's all functional under the hood.
>
> You make it sound like functional programmers like functional
> programming becaus
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
This suggests even the promoters of functional programming intuitively
prefer imperative programming, but that's ok as long as it's all
functional under the hood.
You make it sound like functional programmers like functional
programming because it gives them a warm fuzzy f
Gregory Ewing :
> Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>> The way you can usually tell your functional language has given up
>> purity in favour of mutating implementations is that your code
>> actually runs with non-toy amounts of data :-)
>
> Hmmm. Your argument here seems to be: "Everyone knows that functional
Steve D'Aprano wrote:
The way you can usually tell your functional language has given up purity in
favour of mutating implementations is that your code actually runs with
non-toy amounts of data :-)
Hmmm. Your argument here seems to be: "Everyone knows
that functional languages are impractical,
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:52 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> "the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of the state object
>> – ... without letting anyone know that the implementation has given up
>> any functional purity."
>
> If it's impossible to tell that functio
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
"the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of the state object –
... without letting anyone know that the implementation has given up
any functional purity."
If it's impossible to tell that functional purity has
been given up, then in what sense has it been gi
On Sunday 09 October 2016 18:48, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> monads:
>
>
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
Quoting from the essay:
"the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of th
Paul Rubin wrote:
Also if this operation is what it looks like, it's usually called
"bind". seq is something else entirely.
Ah, I hadn't realised there was already a function in
Haskell called seq -- sorry about that!
I don't really want to call the Python version 'bind',
because it seems a b
Anuradha Laxminarayan wrote:
seq f g h = f (\s1 -> g h s1)
better be written as
seq f g x = f (\s1 -> g x s1)
because naming conventions imply that h is function.
Well, for the subset of monads I'm talking about, it
always is a function -- it's the continuation to be
run after f and g.
--
G
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:53:25 PM UTC+5:30, Anuradha Laxminarayan
wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 October 2016 13:18:32 UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> > Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> > monads:
> >
> > http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/Demyst
Anuradha Laxminarayan writes:
> seq f g x = f (\s1 -> g x s1)
> because naming conventions imply that h is function.
Also if this operation is what it looks like, it's usually called
"bind". seq is something else entirely.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sunday, 9 October 2016 13:18:32 UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> monads:
>
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
>
> Hope it's useful,
> Greg
Thanks, that made a very interesting read.
Paul Rubin writes:
>https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~edmo/silliness/burrito_monads.pdf
Whoops, url changed:
http://emorehouse.web.wesleyan.edu/silliness/burrito_monads.pdf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Oh, undoubtedly. I just don't think it helps understand how burritos
> are used in prog... er, that is, how monads... well, you know what I
> mean.
How about in math?
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~edmo/silliness/burrito_monads.pdf
;-)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
Paul Rubin wrote:
Well, at least I refrained from saying that monads are like burritos!
But they are! See: http://blog.plover.com/prog/burritos.html
Oh, undoubtedly. I just don't think it helps understand
how burritos are used in prog... er, that is, how
monads... well, you know what I mean.
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 1:18:32 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> monads:
>
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
>
> Hope it's useful,
> Greg
Thanks Greg... looks v useful... the co
> Well, at least I refrained from saying that monads are like burritos!
But they are! See: http://blog.plover.com/prog/burritos.html
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> monads:
Thank you for tackling this.
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
You appreciate an important feature of this:
Often it is presented in a very abstrac
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Not sure where I got [h|t] from -- maybe I was thinking of Prolog?)
I've never used Prolog. Erlang is said to have Prolog-like syntax and
it uses [h|t], so maybe Prolog uses it too. (Erlang was originally
written in Prolog).
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
On 09/10/2016 11:35, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Gregory Ewing writes:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/
Well, at least I refrained f
Paul Rubin wrote:
Gregory Ewing writes:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/
Well, at least I refrained from saying that monads are
like burritos!
I
Paul Rubin wrote:
[h|t] should say h:t .
Thanks, corrected. (You can probably tell I'm not a regular
Haskell user. Not sure where I got [h|t] from -- maybe I
was thinking of Prolog?)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gregory Ewing writes:
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
Erratum in Haskell section:
Lists in Haskell are linked lists, and [h|t] represents a list
whose first element is h and the rest of the list is t.
[h|t] should say h:t .
--
https:/
Gregory Ewing writes:
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
monads:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
Hope it's useful,
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
26 matches
Mail list logo
