Very nice series of refactorings!
I'd like to add that it might be a better argument order to replace:
JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
with:
JSON a => String -> a -> MyData -> MyData
Just so you can get a (MyData -> MyData) transformer, which is often
useful.
Eyal
On Jan 16, 1:52 am, "Ryan Ingram" <ryani.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a series of refactorings that I feel gets to the essence of the code.
>
> For reference, here's the original.
>
> > add :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> > add m k v = fromJust $ (return $ json m) >>= jsObj >>= (return .
> > fromJSObject) >>= (return . ((k, showJSON v):)) >>= (return .
> > toJSObject) >>= (return . showJSON) >>= \js -> (return $ m { json = js
> > })
>
> -- turn into do notation
> add :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> add m k v = fromJust $ do
> t1 <- return $ json m
> t2 <- jsObj t1
> t3 <- return $ fromJSObject t2
> t4 <- return ( (k, showJSON v) : t3 )
> t5 <- return $ toJSObject t4
> js <- return $ showJSON t5
> t6 <- return $ m { json = js }
> return t6
>
> -- replace "var <- return exp" with "let var = exp"
> add :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> add m k v = fromJust $ do
> let t1 = json m
> t2 <- jsObj t1
> let t3 = fromJSObject t2
> let t4 = (k, showJSON v) : t3
> let t5 = toJSObject t4
> let js = showJSON t5
> let t6 = m { json = js }
> return t6
>
> -- inline some small definitions
> add m k v = fromJust $ do
> t2 <- jsObj (json m)
> let js = showJSON $ toJSObject ((k, showJSON v) : fromJSObject t2)
> let t6 = m { json = js }
> return t6
>
> -- there's only one real "Maybe" object in here, and we fromJust afterwards,
> -- so put the "can't fail" assumption in the right place.
> --
> -- This is the only refactoring that I felt was at all "tricky" to figure out.
> add m k v =
> let t2 = fromJust $ jsObj (json m)
> js = showJSON $ toJSObject ((k, showJSON v) : fromJSObject t2)
> t6 = m { json = js }
> in t6
>
> -- sugar let, inline t6
> add m k v = m { json = js } where
> t2 = fromJust $ jsObj (json m)
> js = showJSON $ toJSObject ((k, showJSON v) : fromJSObject t2)
>
> -- inline t2
> add m k v = m { json = js } where
> js = showJSON $ toJSObject ((k, showJSON v) : fromJSObject
> (fromJust $ jsObj (json m)))
>
> -- uninline dictionary entry
> add m k v = m { json = js } where
> js = showJSON $ toJSObject (newEntry : fromJSObject (fromJust $
> jsObj (json m)))
> newEntry = (k, showJSON v)
>
> -- factor out modification
> modifyJSON f m = m { json = f (json m) }
> add m k v = modifyJson go m where
> go js = showJSON $ toJSObject (newEntry : fromJSObject (fromJust $
> jsObj js))
> newEntry = (k, showJSON v)
>
> -- turn into pipeline
> modifyJSON f m = m { json = f (json m) }
> add m k v = modifyJSON go m where
> go js = showJSON $ toJSObject $ (newEntry :) $ fromJSObject $
> fromJust $ jsObj js
> newEntry = (k, showJSON v)
>
> -- pointless
> modifyJSON f m = m { json = f (json m) }
> add m k v = modifyJSON go m where
> go = showJSON . toJSObject . (newEntry :) . fromJSObject . fromJust .
> jsObj
> newEntry = (k, showJSON v)
>
> Final result:
>
> > modifyJSON f m = m { json = f (json m) }
>
> > add m k v = modifyJSON go m where
> > go = showJSON . toJSObject . (newEntry :) . fromJSObject . fromJust .
> > jsObj
> > newEntry = (k, showJSON v)
>
> Some stylistic choices are debatable (pointless vs. not, inline vs.
> not), but I think this is a lot more readable than the >>= and liftM
> madness you had going.
>
> I also might refactor the (fromJSObject --> some transformation -->
> toJSObject) path; this seems like a fundamental operation on "MyData",
> but I don't know enough about the library you are using to suggest the
> direction to go with this.
>
> -- ryan
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Levi Greenspan
>
> <greenspan.l...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Dear list members,
>
> > I started looking into monadic programming in Haskell and I have some
> > difficulties to come up with code that is concise, easy to read and
> > easy on the eyes. In particular I would like to have a function "add"
> > with following type signature: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a ->
> > MyData. MyData holds a JSValue and add should add a key and a value to
> > this JSON object. here is what I came up with and I am far from
> > satisfied. Maybe someone can help me to simplify this...
>
> > module Test where
>
> > import Text.JSON
> > import Data.Maybe (isJust, fromJust)
> > import Control.Monad
>
> > data MyData = MyData { json :: JSValue } deriving (Read, Show)
>
> > jsObj :: JSValue -> Maybe (JSObject JSValue)
> > jsObj (JSObject o) = Just o
> > jsObj _ = Nothing
>
> > add :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> > add m k v = fromJust $ (return $ json m) >>= jsObj >>= (return .
> > fromJSObject) >>= (return . ((k, showJSON v):)) >>= (return .
> > toJSObject) >>= (return . showJSON) >>= \js -> (return $ m { json = js
> > })
>
> > add2 :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> > add2 m k v = fromJust $ (\js -> m { json = js }) `liftM` (showJSON
> > `liftM` (toJSObject `liftM` (((k, showJSON v):) `liftM` (fromJSObject
> > `liftM` (jsObj $ json m)))))
>
> > add3 :: JSON a => MyData -> String -> a -> MyData
> > add3 = undefined -- How to simplify add?
>
> > What the code essentially does is that using functions from Text.JSON,
> > it gets the list of key-value pairs and conses another pair to it
> > before wrapping it again in the JSValue-Type.
>
> > Many thanks,
> > Levi
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > haskell-c...@haskell.org
> >http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> haskell-c...@haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
