Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:51:05 -0800
At 2002-02-06 00:33, Koen Claessen wrote:
>Hm... this looks nice. With slight name changes this
Oh if you must. I decided that Refs were _so_ fundamental that anytime
you get, set or modify anything it could probably be represented as a
Ref, so the functions merit highly generic names. And 'read' and 'write'
are for streams IMO.
>Not really, the m -> r is still there in practise, since you
>want to be able to use the 'readRef' and 'writeRef'
>operators, which work on the monad m, and you want them to
>work on the monad (t m).
So how is that an m -> r dependency? Nothing is stopping the programmer
have two different kinds of reference for the same monad, and 'readRef'
and 'writeRef' will work on any Ref.
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA