[<<][rtl][>>][..]
Sun Jun 17 01:41:02 EDT 2018

Arrows?

It would be just Kleisli.

But basically, after Conal indoctrination, I really like the
applicative version more.  Functions, be it monadic functions, seem to
make more sense.

But maybe just try it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4fkkzo/when_does_one_consider_using_arrows/

  While the exact mathematics doesn't seem to have been worked out
  exactly yet, it is well known that Applicative+Category has "about
  the same" expressiveness as Arrows.

  Using Strong from profunctors, you can prove Strong + Category has
  exactly the same expressiveness.

  http://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/~mauro/pubs/Notions_of_Computation_as_Monoids.pdf
  gives most of the story and
  http://www-kb.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~asada/papers/arrStrMnd.pdf gives
  the rest, but you need to read between the lines and see that using
  Category gives you a way to model monads in Prof.


  class (Strong p, Category p) => Arrow p
  instance (Strong p, Category p) => Arrow p

  There. I fixed it.


So basically, forget arrows.




[Reply][About]
[<<][rtl][>>][..]