Re: Proposal: add replay function to Control.Monad.Cont.Class

Agreed that 'label' is a better name than goto/replay. It didn't even hit me until I saw setJump that `m (m a)` doesn't allow representing recursive functions with arguments, so `a -> m(a -> m b, a)` does seem much more expressive to me Starting with my original examples, introducing the recursive binding when there are arguments would look like `(numberPromptStep, (x,y)) <- setJump (x0, y0)` `fix $ \numberPromptStep x y -> do` `numberPromptStep x y = do` It is slightly annoying that the later 2 can simply add an argument while setJump requires using the uncurried version but I don't see a way around that since >>= itself works that way `m (m a)` is essentially the 0-tuple version of `a -> m(a -> m b, a)` which makes me wonder if it's even worth having. Sure, it's convenient not to have these unit/() around, but maybe the same argument (heh) could be made for 2-argument and 3-argument versions. do numberPromptStep <- setJump (..) numberPromptStep do (numberPromptStep, x, y) <- setJump2 x0 y0 (..) numberPromptStep x' y' Given that, I think `a -> m (a -> m b, a)` is the important one be it called label or setJump and maybe there can be a specialized 0-tuple version (e.g. label_ / setJump_) offering the `m (m a)` special case. I don't feel strongly about it though, since unlike `for_` it wouldn't actually relax constraints, only have a simpler signature. On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 7:33 PM David Feuer wrote:

Why not both?

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021, 1:36 PM Zemyla wrote:

...

I kind of don't like it, because the continuation doesn't return anything but itself. I'd prefer something that works more like the setjmp function in C, taking a value and returning the value plus a function that lets it return the new value:

setJump :: MonadCont m => a -> m (a -> m b, a) setJump a = callCC $ \k -> let go b = k (go, b) in pure (go, a)

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021, 11:36 Carter Schonwald wrote:

...

Yeah

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:16 PM Edward Kmett wrote:

...

I rather like label. +1 from me.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 1:25 AM Tom Ellis < tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:

...

On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 03:25:16AM +0000, Alexandre Esteves wrote:

...

replay :: MonadCont m => m (m a) replay = callCC $ pure . fix

Using this in a do-notation block allows one to bind a name to the sub-block that starts immediately after. I reached for continuations to try to get this behavior for use with recursive flows without disrupting the reading of the main forward flow and found how to do it in https://jsdw.me/posts/haskell-cont-monad/ under the name "goto".

While "goto" is as familiar as a name can be, I feel "replay" more accurately conveys, that you can only 'go back', by stating what actually is happening - that a sub-block we're currently evaluating is replayed from its beginning.

Looks like a "label" more than a "goto" to me. Would "label" be a good name? _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries