On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:47:04AM +0300, Lauri Alanko wrote:
When I use arrows, I find that many of my primitives are of type (a () b) (for some arrow type a): they produce a value but don't take any input. E.g. deterministic parsers are like this.
The syntactic sugar for arrows is lovely, but I find it a bit tedious writing "foo -< ()" all the time. The syntax allows the output of arrows to be ignored, why not input too?
Would it cause unreasonable parsing problems simply to allow a simple expression of an arrow type to be a legal command inside a proc expression, with an implicit -< () input? Or are there other reasons against it?
I for one find it extremely convenient that I can write "purely imperative" code with a simple syntax like do { foo; bar; baz }. I'd like similar simplicity when dealing with arrows, too.
ooh. I second this motion. if it is possible that is. -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈