On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Robin Green <greenrd@greenrd.org> wrote:

fmap actually does the same thing as second (when applied to pairs), so
you can replace second with fmap.

If you want to go insane, you can actually make this redefinition:

import Prelude hiding ((.))

infixr 9 .
(.) :: (Functor f) => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(.) = fmap

and then just use (.) (either infix or bracketed) instead of fmap
throughout.

--
Robin

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:23:37 -0800

"Conal Elliott" <conal@conal.net> wrote:

> You can also mix in 'first' and 'second' arbitrarily and read them
> directly from the type as well, when there is (possibly nested) pair
> structure on the way to the value being modified. That's why I call
> fmap, first, and second "semantic editor combinators". Sometime soon
> I'm going to blog about these tricks.
>
> - Conal
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Creighton Hogg <wchogg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Conal Elliott <conal@conal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also, a less forgetful version of subs might be useful:
> >>
> >> withSubs xs e :: [a] -> Event b -> Event (b,a)
> >>
> >> and then
> >>
> >> subs xs e = snd <$> withSubs xs e
> >>
> >> or, if you like,
> >>
> >> subs = (fmap.fmap.fmap) snd withSubs
> >>
> >> Btw, you can read the three fmaps directly from the signature of
> >> withSubs (two arrows plus one Event on the way to the pair).
> >>
> >> - Conal
> >
> >
> > That's a cute trick with the number of fmap's required. Never
> > thought of it that way.
> >
> > Also, I'd like to apologize for not mentioning quicksilver from
> > #haskell in my last e-mail. An honest slip-up, but an
> > inappropriate one.
> >

_______________________________________________
Reactive mailing list
Reactive@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/reactive