beyond specific combinator tutorial, are there any generic combinator paper, or introductory ones ? thks Luc
beyond specific combinator tutorial, are there any generic combinator paper, or introductory ones ?
what exactly do you mean by "combinator". there's the recent area of parser combinators and such, but there's also Combinatory Logic in itself, which is a formal system closely related to the lambda calculus. a nice introduction is here: http://uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Lambda/index.htm which is based on the "ornithology" from here: Smullyan, R.M. (1985) To mock a mockingbird. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. of course, the definitive references on Comb. L. and Lambda Calc. are the books by Curry, Feys, Hindley, Seldin, Barendregt (check your library). beware that the classical theory (as expressed in these books) is mostly un-typed (you can apply anything to anything). enjoy, -- -- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ -- -- joe@informatik.uni-leipzig.de -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
beyond specific combinator tutorial, are there any generic combinator paper, or introductory ones ?
what exactly do you mean by "combinator". there's the recent area of parser combinators and such,
well, i didnt knew it was new, but , yes, that's it. ive read some paper on parser combinator, and as im working with haxml, id like to have some of my stuuf done in the same style, then i realize i had a tendency to design function that reacted on data (itself), rather than combinators. (probably too mucj of "old stuff in my head ;-) so i would like to backstep , and look at combinator as such , and not applied in a given context (liker parser or haxml)) which example i can understand, but not easily change my style of programming accordingly. so, reformulation : has anyone know a paper like : "change ure mindset from data oriented programming to combinators one " ?
but there's also Combinatory Logic in itself, which is a formal system closely related to the lambda calculus.
is this then relevnt for me to look t that, in the light of my previous explanation ?
participants (2)
-
Johannes Waldmann -
luc