Home

XLinq: XML Programming Refactored (The Return Of The Monoids)

I just posted my XML 2005 submission about XLinq on my homepage.
It describes the XLinq API in somewhat detail, and informally explains the relationship between LINQ and monads.

By Erik Meijer at 2005-09-23 01:53 | Guest Bloggers | other blogs | 10843 reads

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

acronym

skimming through it I thought "wow, these guys really like everything New"

By pantagruel at Fri, 2005-09-23 07:43 | login or register to post comments

some suggestions

It'd be useful to have a reminder of the algebraic
definition of monoids, to see how lists, arrays
fit the definition. It's in the title, yet the
connection is not explained. I believe you meant
that monoids are the key to compositionality,
though that's never made explicit.

My brain splatted on the VB syntax in section 4.1.
Maybe putting the equivalent Haskell side-by-side
would help.

In the same section, the phrase "or indeed as monadic
bind", is meant to apply only to the List monad, right?

Of course, PLT Scheme's X-expressions achieve
greater notational economy than even the VB XML
literals. You could just use null or void for the
holes. Good to see that VB is trying to catch-up,
though :-)

--
Paul Steckler

By steck at Sat, 2005-09-24 01:53 | login or register to post comments

PL Humour, all week!

Aside: "My brain splatted on the VB syntax in section 4.1. Maybe putting the equivalent Haskell side-by-side would help." That struck me as quite funny (in a good way) because statisically speaking, most anywhere else on Earth a) that would make no sense to anybody and b) if it did, the would beg for VB syntax when presented with snippets of Haskell!

By raould at Fri, 2005-09-30 21:17 | login or register to post comments