>> Here's how I do it:
>>
>> data InteractiveState = InteractiveState {
>> state_read :: IO Command
>> , state_write :: Result -> IO ()
>> }
>>
>
> How about :
>
>> data InteractiveState io = InteractiveState {
>> state_read :: io Command
>> , state_write :: Result -> io ()
>> }
I guess you could, but I like it concrete.
> Then you don't even depend on some specific monad. I understand you can
> always (always?) encapsulate what is done through a type class by using a
> data containing functions. But then, is this not even closer to OO
> programming, an object that carries its own methods with itself, possibly
> with the additional overhead that *each* instance would have its own private
> references to possibly identical functions.
No, because I don't think there are any objects? In fact, I'm not
even sure what you mean. I'm assuming you have an event loop like:
event_loop st = do
cmd <- state_read st
state_write st (calculate_response cmd)
event_loop st
calculate_response :: Command -> Result
Since 'st' never changes (in my case it does have some changing
values), you can just write:
event_loop st = forever $ state_write st =<< calculate_response <$>
state_read st
There are no objects or private references here, and I'm not even sure
what they mean in this context.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
