[PL-sem-jr] 06/15/2017

[Benjamin Chung]

Also fine with 2.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:22 AM Artem Pelenitsyn <
artem.pelenitsyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, guys, I'm very sorry for additional noise, but can we consider 2 pm
> Wednesday? (Some people can't handle 11) Please, write if you ok with this
> or not.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Artem
>
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017, 19:43 Artem Pelenitsyn, <artem.pelenitsyn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear participants of Pl-sem-jr!
>>
>> Julia flys for ECOOP Thursday afternoon. Will it be possible to shift our
>> meeting from Thursday to Wednesday? Not only for her to be able to
>> participate, but also for me to accompany her on the way to airport.
>>
>> I checked out our poll for a time:
>> https://www.when2meet.com/?6176735-4ddqD
>> It turns out that the most convinient time on Wednesday is 11-00. Is it
>> OK for most of us?
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Artem
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, 21:06 Artem Pelenitsyn, <artem.pelenitsyn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, guys!
>>>
>>> Thank everyone who voted for the topic. Clear winner is 'Compiling to
>>> categories' -- we will discuss it next Thursday. Please, prepare:
>>>
>>> http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/compiling-to-categories.pdf
>>>
>>> -- Artem
>>>
>>>
>>> чт, 8 июн. 2017 г. в 14:34, Artem Pelenitsyn <artem.pelenitsyn at gmail.com
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Hi, guys!
>>>>
>>>> I have two options for the next week so far:
>>>>
>>>>    - V. Vene categorical programming with inductive and coinductive
>>>>    types (first several chapters) // PhD thesis
>>>>    - C. Elliot Compiling to categories // ICFP'17
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible for you to vote for any?
>>>> https://www.survle.com/s/593994f4dbf20
>>>>
>>>> Short summary:
>>>> 1) (Vene) Categorical means to express common "(co)inductive" types
>>>> (Lists, Trees, Streams...) and algorithms on them (fold/unfold).
>>>> 2) (Elliot) Categorical approach to program transformation in Haskell:
>>>> write simple functional program and turn it into 1) graph, 2) hardware
>>>> description, etc.
>>>>
>>>> As for the second option (this is my favourite one as it is newer for
>>>> me): No deep understanding of Haskell is required, syntax would be
>>>> described as we go (we only need the notion and syntax for type classes
>>>> really).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Artem
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> Pl-sem-jr mailing list
> Pl-sem-jr at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/pl-sem-jr
>
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed