Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 03.07.2008, 11:35 -0700 schrieb David Roundy: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 07:09:58PM +0100, ChrisK wrote: > > Joachim Breitner wrote: > > You are violating the monad laws. (f >> k) and (f >>= \_ -> k) > > should do the same thing. You might write a version of liftIO that > > has the effect you want, however. > > I don't mind a little anarchy in the monad laws... :)
It depends on what level you want them to be true. Assuming the rest of the code is correct, the only difference that (f >> k) from (f >>= \_ -> k) is that a file write in k, which would make no difference, would be omitted. In this sense, the monad laws are followed. > I must say that I prefer the automatic computation of dependencies as > outlined by Joachim. Thanks! > Of course, to create a "make" replacement, you'd also have to be able > to call external programs and track which files they use, which is a > hard problem, particularly as which files they use may depend on the > contents of the files that they use. One could, however, lift calls > to well-behaved external programs (e.g. those like ghc or gcc that can > output their dependencies) into this sort of monad. That’s easily possible with a custom sourceAction, which allows you to set the action, and the time stamp detection independently. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Key: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Debian Developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
