From 19f1c9781515f19e8b7247a6299ad1610d284640 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrey Mokhov Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:42:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update todo.md --- paper/todo.md | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/paper/todo.md b/paper/todo.md index 699fea0..41ed185 100644 --- a/paper/todo.md +++ b/paper/todo.md @@ -25,4 +25,19 @@ ## Alternative formulations -* @LSLeary: https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/axje88/selective_applicative_functors/ehwo9qn/ +* @LSLeary: https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/axje88/selective_applicative_functors/ehwo9qn/. + + > An equivalent formulation `select :: f (Either (a -> b) b) -> f a -> f b` leads to a pretty encoding. + +## Towards monadic bind + +* @sclv: https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/axje88/selective_applicative_functors/ehw5x6l/ + + > one could actually use `unsafePerformIO` to very unsafely actually get the binary representation + > of the thunk, and "read it out" byte by byte, then based on branching on that, only enter actual + > "proper" value. (i.e. since we're inside a machine, we actually only have finitary representations, + > even if our data structures "look" infinite -- this is actually a form of "Skolem's Paradox"!). + > (The idea of this bitwise testing thing is inspired by some of the tricks used in the classic + > "Implicit Configurations" paper: http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/tr-15-04.pdf) + > So in "real" terms, bind is by a series of dirty hacks, fully recoverable from select. +