On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The big benefit I got from using the State Monad was that I was able to > reorder the functions > by just copy/pasting the function name from one > place to another. > > I don't understand... why do you need state to do this? Couldn't you > have a function pipeline using dots for composition like > > .... ( > ... > parseAttn . > parsePoBox . > ... > ) address ... > > and have the functions be equally switchable? (well, the first and > last can't quite be copy pasted, but close enough.) > > Introducing state seems like a lot of trouble to me if the only one is > easier reorderability of lines. > Agreed, in fact I started with a function pipeline and then switched to using the State Monad. As the program was written months ago I don't remember exactly why. Maybe I don't like to read backwards. ;-) Funtions running in the state monad can call other functions with the same `State s a` signature (and so on as deep as you want). You never have to care about passing parameters and restarting a new pipeline. But of course you can easily do without the State Monad. I don't think the State Monad allows to do thing that you can't do with basic Haskell. It just makes code more readable (in my opinion at least). Olivier.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
