Another alternative (which I got from Greg Morrisett) that I'm toying with is
this. It's tiresome to write
do { x <- <stuff1>
; y <- <sutff2>
; f x y }
In ML I'd write simply
f <stuff1> <stuff2>
So Greg's idea (or at least my understanding thereof) is to write it like this:
do { f $(stuff1) $(stuff2) }
The idea is that a "splice" $e must be lexically enclosed by a 'do', with no
intervening lambda. It's desugared to the code above; that is, each splice it
pulled out, in lexically left-right order, and given a name, which replaces the
splice.
Of course it doesn't have to look like the above; the rule applies to any do:
do { v <- this; foo $(h v); y <- f $(t v v); ...etc }
The "linearise the splices" rule is quite general.
Don't burn any cycles on concrete syntax; I know the $ notation is used for
Template Haskell; one would need to think of a good syntax. But the idea is to
make it more convenient to write programs that make effectful calls, and then
use the result exactly once.
Anyway, this'd do what the original proposer wanted, but in a much more general
way.
Just a thought -- I have not implemented this.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adde
| Sent: 10 July 2007 21:40
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: haskell-prime@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Make it possible to evaluate monadic actions when assigning
record fields
|
| On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 17:04 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >
| > > Adde wrote:
| > > > tmp <- foo
| > > > return Bar {
| > > > barFoo = tmp
| > > > }
| > >
| > > There is a feature being worked on in GHC HEAD that would let you do
| > >
| > > do
| > > tmp <- foo
| > > return Bar{..}
| > >
| > > which captures fields from everything of the same name that's in scope.
| > > I think this would also satisfy your desire.
| > >
| >
| > I guess this means I could write:
| >
| >
| > data D = C {field1 :: Bool, field2 :: Char}
| >
| > f x = do
| > field1 <- foo1
| > field2 <- foo2
| > field3 <- foo3
| > other stuff
| > return C{..}
| >
| >
| > instead of
| >
| >
| > f x = do
| > tmp1 <- foo1
| > tmp2 <- foo2
| > field3 <- foo3
| > other stuff
| > return $ C { field1 = tmp1, field2 = tmp2 }
| >
| >
| > This has a dangerous feel to it ---
| > extending the definition of D to include a field field3
| > may have quite unintended consequences.
| >
| >
| > What I am missing most in the record arena
| > is a functional notation for record update, for example:
| >
| > {^ field1 } = \ f r -> r {field1 = f (field1 r)}
|
| I agree, capturing variables without asking is just scary.
| While I'm pretty biased I still think my suggestion solves the problem
| in a cleaner, more consistent way.
|
| /Adde
|
| _______________________________________________
| Haskell-prime mailing list
| Haskell-prime@haskell.org
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
