>From what you've said, it sounds like you can already write:
serverSide :: IO a -> Form a
This seems elegant enough to me for your needs. Just encourage it as an
idiom specific to Forms.
myBlogForm = Blog <$> titleForm <*> serverSide getCurrentTime <*>
contentsForm
Could you abstract `serverSide` out into a typeclass, such as
ApplicativeIO? Sure. but why bother? The point is, you've got the
specialization you need already.
-- Dan Burton
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Tom Ellis <
tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2...@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:29:00AM +0200, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 02:21:13 -0500, John Lato <jwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's not a solution per se, but it seems to me that there's no need
> for the
> > > Monad superclass constraint on MonadIO. If that were removed, we could
> > > just have
> > >
> > > class LiftIO t where
> > > liftIO :: IO a -> t a
> > >
> > > and it would Just Work.
> >
> > One concern with this is that it's not exactly clear what the semantics
> > are on LiftIO (is liftIO a >> liftIO b equal to liftIO (a >> b) or not?)
> > and the interaction between LiftIO and Applicative/Monad would have to
> > be some sort of ugly ad-hoc law like we have with Bounded/Enum etc.
>
> Shouldn't it be an *Applicative* constraint?
>
> class Applicative t => ApplicativeIO t where
> liftIO :: IO a -> t a
>
> and require that
>
> liftIO (pure x) = pure x
> liftIO (f <*> x) = liftIO f <*> liftIO x
>
> Seems like ApplicativeIO makes more sense than MonadIO, which is
> unnecessarily restrictive. With planned Functor/Applicative/Monad shuffle,
> the former could completely replace the latter.
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
