Well, I haven't used Arrows-minus-arr that much but I did cook up such
a library some time ago. Mostly because I had a friend who was
interested in using arrows for a data type which didn't have arr. And
indeed there are several interesting types which lack arr but make
perfect arrows otherwise.
Throwing out arr has a quite substantial impact on the design of the
library. The original arrows library used arr pretty much everywhere
to define various derived functions. One has to be much more
disciplines when restricting oneself. Another thing is the arrows
notation. It would take some work to translate it into
arrows-minus-arr. But it is really painful to program with the new
library without the notation which is the reason I haven't done much
programming with it.
/Josef
On 6/1/05, Conal Elliott
I'd like to hear more about people using Arrows-minus-arr, as I ran into the same in a project I'm working on for interactive construction of GUI-wrapped functional values & code.
- Conal
-----Original Message----- From: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Shaw Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:55 AM To: John Goerzen Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] CGI module almost useless
Hello,
I have done all of those things in WASH. But, don't let that stop you from writing something better :) I think some people started a project to write a CGI interface based on a 'Category' -- where a 'Category' is like an 'Arrow' without the 'pure/arr' function...
Jeremy Shaw.