Dean Herrington has mailed me to point out that the metatype is unnecessary:
class Assert a where
assertW :: MVar a -> a -> a
assertR :: MVar a -> a
instance Assert a => Assert [a] where
assertW mv [] = unsafePerformIO $ do putMVar mv []; return []
assertW mv (x:xs) = unsafePerformIO $ do
mvx <- newEmptyMVar
mvxs <- newEmptyMVar
putMVar mv (assertR mvx : assertR mvxs)
return (assertW mvx x : assertW mvxs xs)
assertR mv = unsafePerformIO $ takeMVar mv
When I picked up Claus Reinke's suggestion I divided the problem
into (1) define the writer, and then *separately* (2) define the reader,
which led me to define a type explicitly representing the interface
between the two. But I missed the opportunity to apply a suitable
deforestation tactic at the end, eliminating this intermediate structure
by shifting reader applications into the writer.
Beside the elimination of the metatype, an additional attraction of
this latest solution is that a single definition of assertR
suffices for all instances. (Even without automation, defining
assertW instances should be light work given a few handy combinators.)
Thank you Dean!
Colin R
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
