[m-dev.] Re: [m-rev.] for review: io__action_sequenceN

[Ralph Becket]

> From: David Overton [mailto:dmo at cs.mu.OZ.AU]
> 
> I've been thinking about how we might be able to do something similar
> to this whilst avoiding having to write a whole bunch of similar
> predicates for different numbers of actions.
> 
> I had a think about using a higher order combinator approach and came
> up with the following.  Comments would be appreciated.

Excellent idea.

But I'd rather see `>>>` and `>>=` than `then' and `seq`, partly
to avoid overloading more names and partly because I'd like to
reserve seq/N for some work I'm contemplating on parallelizing
combinators.

- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------