Afaik, you're right about Yampa not being event-driven. I've been working on alternatives for a while that are event-driven while still genuinely functional (non-IO). See http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Reactive and http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/TV . I have some blog posts in the works about the inner goings-on of Reactive.
- Conal 2008/1/24 Peter Verswyvelen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [...] > The main problem I could see is that Yampa is not really event driven in > the imperative sense; I mean in an ideal event based system, the hardware > triggers an interrupt when some sensor changes, and this then triggers other > software events; only the code that is related to handling the event that > occurred is executed. But the event that is handled could potentially not be > needed for the current output (which could be considered as a programming > bug...) I think Yampa does not do that, it kinda "pulls" the information out > of the current signal function network, which has the advantage of only > executing the code that is needed for the output, but the disadvantage is > that it does a lot of routing and checking which event happened. > > Warning to newbies: the above is most likely incorrect information, this > is just the way I experienced it ;-) >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
