It appears I have subconsciously plagiarized something I must've read a
long time ago? Well I'm citing that blog then.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
> Stephen Chang wrote:
>
> Reminds me of this:
>> http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-
>> mostly
Stephen Chang wrote:
Reminds me of this:
http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html
1990 - A committee formed by Simon Peyton-Jones, Paul Hudak, Philip
Wadler, Ashton Kutcher, and People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals creates Haskell, a pure, non-strict,
>> > a hylomorphism is just an endofunctor in the Hask category of
>> > profunctorally-dual product monoids with just a hint of commutative free
>> > applicative comonads and a dash of F-algebra,
>>
>>
>> Do you have citations for that?
Reminds me of this:
http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/br
Unfortunately I forgot which site it was and I deleted my browsing history
as I always do after looking at functional porngramming.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote:
>
> > a hylomorphism is just an endofunctor in th
On Apr 22, 2014, at 10:10 PM, Sean Kanaley wrote:
> a hylomorphism is just an endofunctor in the Hask category of
> profunctorally-dual product monoids with just a hint of commutative free
> applicative comonads and a dash of F-algebra,
Do you have citations for that?
I'm slightly late to the lens party but Haskell seems to have a solution to
this problem that simultaneously solves another--pattern matching--the
location of a value shouldn't be hard-coded similarly in 50 different
places that deconstruct a struct just to save typing on an accessor, god
forbid th
There are a lot of tradeoffs in decisions like this. Personally, for
instance, I've never found the desire for a generic set!; I just use a
specific set! or store a box (mutable reference cell) wherever I need to
mutate something. The impact of an lvalue system is going to be different
for each S
Thanks for the explanation. I suspected it was for efficiency reasons,
but as I've never implemented a "real" scheme, I don't know the trade
off. I wonder how bad it is. Way back, they invented lisp. Then they
said it was too slow for real stuff. Now they say other languages are
too weak f
Sean,
Not every Scheme uses an interpreter with an eval function as its primary
method of execution, or even at all. Racket uses a bytecode interpreter
and a JIT native-code compiler; the eval function simply triggers
compilation to bytecode. These give a great deal more efficiency than
running
Hello all,
I was curious why Scheme and now Racket does not inherently support a
generic set!. I found an SRFI
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-17/srfi-17.htmlthat suggests a generic
method solution requiring a lookup for the "real"
setter (and so needing a special setter for every data type. What
10 matches
Mail list logo
