Yitzchak Gale wrote: > Here is a concrete example: > > Let's say you want to shuffle a large list randomly, > within a larger application that lives inside some > MTL monad stack. Among other things, your monad > m satisfies (RandomGen g, MonadState g m), perhaps > after a lift. > > Well, it turns out that using Data.Sequence or Data.IntMap > to shuffle a list becomes prohibitive if you might have > more than about 10^5 elements in your list. So in that > case you will need to use a mutable array, and you now > need ST. > > Combining ST and MTL can be messy, even in this simple > case. You will probably write something with a type like > > RandomGen g => [a] -> g -> ST s ([a], g)
But why would you even want to do this? It's ugly and cumbersome. You'd plug a runST in there and get shuffle :: RandomGen g => [a] -> g -> ([a], g) or lift it into a state monad. Telling the world that you messed with imperative code inside is completely pointless, since the only thing you could possibly do with the result anyway is apply runST to it. > Wouldn't it be nice if instead you could just write: > > shuffle :: (RandomGen g, MonadState g m) => [a] -> m [a] > shuffle = stToState . shuffleST It seems, what you really want is shuffleST :: RandomGen g => [a] -> StateT g ST [a] No need to stick the generator into a mutable variable. Maybe you even want a MonadST class, analogous to MonadIO. > >Uhm... use MonadState in the first place? > > You mean use ST in the first place. No, I don't. -Udo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
