to clarify: having bind would be equivalent to having arr for the purposes
of my question (assuming its the standard monadic bind).
having arr :: (b -> c) -> a b c
is tantamount to assuming that any haskell function can be embedded in an
arrow instance
which prevents a lot of interesting deep embedding uses of the Arrow
abstraction/ or at least makes it a bit tricker. (eg things like writing
circuits or certain types of compiled FRP models).
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Jan Stolarek
FYI it's #7828, not #7282. Of course, yes.
would making arrow remindable involve dropping the arr == haksell functions assumption or doing something that would allow generalized arrows? Not sure if I fully understand what you mean. There's an idea to give up on current desugaring that heavily uses arr, >>> etc. in favor of desugaring based on bind equivalents for arrows. Is this what you wanted to know? There's some discussion on the Trac you might want to follow.
Janek _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs