mastodon 4.7.3PhD student at Delft University of Technology 🎓 in the @DelftPL@akademienl.social group. Trying to build correct compilers from modular building blocks 🧩 in #Agda.
I'm also a #Haskell enthusiast, #GHC contributor, and a member of the GHC Steering Committee and the Core Libraries Committee.
Other than that, I like to play #folk guitar 🎶 and practicing a bit on my banjo 🪕. I also appreciate playing with language 📝 #lightverse.
The discussion on the use of AI in the Agda project last week has convinced me I need to do more to push back against its use in projects I contribute to. However, I alone do not have the power to change the policy of all projects I want to contribute to over night. Are any groups organizing against AI in open source? Do you think that could be effective? Would you join?
Problem of the day:
Derive a fused function equal to `dupLast . dupLast` where
dupLast [] = []
dupLast [x] = [x,x]
dupLast (x:xs) = x : dupLast xs
Experienced functional programmers might see at a glance what the fused function looks like, but how do we derive it formally from the definition of `dupLast`?
Is there any appetite to change tuple section notation in #haskell?
Here's my proposal:
@gvwilson@mastodon.social In functional programming you can abstract over patterns like that. For example, the foldMap function traverses a structure and collects all the elements according to some given mapping function and the monoid structure on the result, like how you'd use a gatherer variable in imperative languages.
Another thing that comes to mind are effect systems. The Writer effect is much lik a gatherer variable, for example. If you can define custom effects, you can separate uses of mutation.
