 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back under
my rock again and be quiet. :-/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'combinatorlibraries.pdf' (107 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-6-2009 15:04, Invisible wrote:
> Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back under
> my rock again and be quiet. :-/
Ok, this is more like it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Ok, this is more like it.
...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back under
> my rock again and be quiet. :-/
Why would we point and laugh? It's very clear and well presented.
Nits: Your abstract has an "an" where you meant "a". Page 4 is missing a
closing paren (and a space after "function"). The number of italics near the
beginning for emphasis is a bit distracting, sounding more like you're
enthused than scholarly. Exclamation marks similarly. Later where you're
using italics to highlight differences between parallel sentence constructs
it's helpful. On page 6, rather than "To see how we can achieve our stated
goal", restate the goal: "To see how we can get both results returned..."
"Suguar" is misspelled, as is "auxhilery", as is "grammer". You mistyped
"P_SueprChain()".
Add a concluding section, and explain in the abstract why someone might want
to read the paper. These are two parts of any paper that are difficult to
get right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back under
> my rock again and be quiet. :-/
Interesting, maybe you should clean it up and publish it under your
real name, maybe somewhere like the Monad.Reader or some such.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to share some of your technical musings with
a larger audience of functional programmers.
In general I prefer a top down approach to learning, but the
bottom up pattern you are following is frequently used in
academia. Maybe you should mention buildExpressionParser
and makeTokenParser?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> Interesting, maybe you should clean it up and publish it under your
> real name, maybe somewhere like the Monad.Reader or some such.
> It certainly wouldn't hurt to share some of your technical musings with
> a larger audience of functional programmers.
Well, that's vaguely my idea. It's part of a sequence of "portfolio"
documents I'm writing, in case I need to show somebody some day what my
writing skills are like. (Most of my documents never get finished.
Except the ones at work - which, obviously, I can't show to anybody.)
I think the Monad.Reader would be the wrong place though; combinator
libraries ARE very well known within the FP community. It's the people
outside that it's going to be new to. (I'm not sure where *would* be an
appropriate place to publish it though.)
> In general I prefer a top down approach to learning, but the
> bottom up pattern you are following is frequently used in
> academia.
I'm not even sure how you'd explain Parsec from the top down. The whole
design of the system is that you build parsers in a bottom-up style, so
that seems a logical way to describe it.
> Maybe you should mention buildExpressionParser
> and makeTokenParser?
I already mentioned buildExpressionParser. (Top of page 9.) I merely
didn't refer to it by name.
The aim of the document is not to be a reference manual for Parsec (I
mean, I've changed all the function names and the entire syntax for
starters!), but to give OOP enthusiasts a taste of how Parsec does
things. Knowing that you can feed a datastructure into a library
function and have it construct your parser for you is sufficient, IMHO.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back
>> under my rock again and be quiet. :-/
>
> Why would we point and laugh? It's very clear and well presented.
Really?
Well... that's nice.
> Nits:
Oh goodie.
> Your abstract has an "an" where you meant "a".
Yeah. I inserted "rare" before "obscure". Evidently I forgot to change that.
> Page 4 is missing a
> closing paren (and a space after "function").
The former is probably lack of brainpower; the latter is probably lack
of musclepower. ;-)
> The number of italics near
> the beginning for emphasis is a bit distracting, sounding more like
> you're enthused than scholarly. Exclamation marks similarly.
Agreed. I should stop using Haskell so much. (FWIW, just before posting
I took a bunch of exclamations out of the notes section at the end
because it sounded too hyperactive. Like, "mahaha! I tricked you all
into learning monads!") I do tend to overuse emphasis in general.
> On page 6, rather than "To see how we can
> achieve our stated goal", restate the goal: "To see how we can get both
> results returned..."
Agreed.
> "Suguar" is misspelled, as is "auxhilery", as is
> "grammer". You mistyped "P_SueprChain()".
Yay! I suck. :-}
> Add a concluding section, and explain in the abstract why someone might
> want to read the paper. These are two parts of any paper that are
> difficult to get right.
You're telling me...!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-6-2009 21:59, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> Ok, this is more like it.
>
> ...?
>
There is 11 minutes between this and the other reply. Does that exceed
your short term memory?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:40:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Have a read. Point. Laugh. And then let me go and I'll crawl back
>>> under my rock again and be quiet. :-/
>>
>> Why would we point and laugh? It's very clear and well presented.
>
> Really?
Yeah, really. I read a bit of it (I'm not a hard-core programmer so the
topic isn't as much of an interest to me, but I've said it before that
you write well and I stand by that assessment).
>> Nits:
>
> Oh goodie.
Hey, all people can stand to improve on their writing. Don't take it so
personally - it's called "constructive criticism". As I mentioned
before, professional writers usually use an editor as well because when
you write tohusands of words, you're bound to mess some of them up. It
happens to everyone. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Why would we point and laugh? It's very clear and well presented.
>> Really?
>
> Yeah, really. I read a bit of it (I'm not a hard-core programmer so the
> topic isn't as much of an interest to me, but I've said it before that
> you write well and I stand by that assessment).
Nice that somebody thinks so...
>>> Nits:
>> Oh goodie.
>
> Hey, all people can stand to improve on their writing. Don't take it so
> personally - it's called "constructive criticism".
Yeah, I wasn't completely serious about that comment. ;-)
> As I mentioned
> before, professional writers usually use an editor as well because when
> you write tohusands of words, you're bound to mess some of them up. It
> happens to everyone. :-)
You don't even have to write "tohusands" of words. Apparently. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
