Ryan Ingram wrote:
> Normally I agree with you, apfelmus, but here at least I have to differ!
/me considers map crushToPurée . filter disagrees ;)
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, apfelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *HTML> toString $ tag "b" [] [tag "i" [] [text "<>"], text "test"]
>> "<b><i><></i>test</b>"
>
> I'd say the big problem is that your embedded language for describing
> HTML is way more complex for a domain expert than
>
> doc = renderHTML $(q "<b><i>#{v1}</i>#{v2}</b>")
> where
> v1 = "<>"
> v2 = "test"
>
> which, while somewhat error-prone in the HTML string itself, is much
> more likely to get used than an embedded language. One thing that
> "ideal in theory" solutions seem to miss out on a lot is usability;
Ok, syntactic considerations.
Why again would I want to bother memorizing HTML syntax?
I know the Haskell syntax, in particular the space for function
application and lowercase identifiers for variables. I care little about
the myriad of other notations for function application and variables
that people have invented, for that's - in a sense - what all languages
boil down to. How is remembering more arcane syntax more usable?
Also, by embedding instead of "enshrining" a DSL like HTML in the host
language, I get all the flexibility of the host language.
node :: String -> [Attr] -> [Html] -> Html -- renamed from last time
text :: String -> Html
tag x = node x []
bold = tag "b"
italic = tag "i"
olist = tag "ol" . map (tag "li")
table = tag "table" . map (tag "tr" . map (tag "td"))
example = bold [italic $ text "<>", text "test"]
dialogue = tag "dl" . map (\(speaker,talk) ->
[tag "dt" [italic $ text (speaker ++ ":")]
,tag "dd" talk])
In a sense, I can define my own tags.
Regards,
apfelmus
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
