[Haskell-cafe] Why were unfailable patterns removed and "fail" added to Monad?
ryani.spam at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 20:34:03 CET 2012
I don't currently have anything to add to this discussion, but I want to
encourage you all to keep having it because I think it has potential to
improve the language in the "do things right or don't do them at all"
philosophy that Haskell tends towards.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Jacques Carette <carette at mcmaster.ca>wrote:
> On 19/01/2012 10:19 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
>> In other words,
>> MonadZero has no place in dealing with pattern match failure!
>> I completely agree. See "Bimonadic semantics for basic pattern matching
> calculi"  for an exploration of just that. In the language of that
> paper, the issue is that there is a monad of effects for actions, and a
> monad of effects for pattern matching, and while these are very lightly
> related, they really are quite different. By varying both monads, one can
> easily vary through a lot of different behaviour for pattern-matching as
> found in the literature.
> I should add that if we had known about some of the deeper structures of
> pattern matching (as in Krishnaswami's Focusing on Pattern Matching ,
> published 3 years *later*), we could have simplified our work.
>  http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~**kahl/Publications/Conf/Kahl-**
>  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~neelk/**pattern-popl09.pdf<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Eneelk/pattern-popl09.pdf>
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe