Have you seen the OOHaskell paper (the follow up to the HList paper)...
It looks like
you do much the same thing - with some differences... Would be
interesting to get your
comments on the paper:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/OOHaskell/
Keean.
Einar Karttunen wrote:
Hello
I recently
Subject: Re: mutable records
hi, Is it possible to define parts of a
record with the help of the *ST s* monad *mutable* during the
whole program? (As is possible in Ocamel)?you can find an example of
how to do that at:http://icfpcontest.cse.ogi.edu/simulator/look
inside module Robo
Hi,
thx for this reply.
Is there any overhead using this mutable?
I just thought I should point out that Mutable is not an haskell type.
You can see in the Utils module that it is just a type synonim for IORef:
http://icfpcontest.cse.ogi.edu/simulator/pfe.cgi?Utils#Mutable
hi,
Is it possible to define parts of a record with the help of the *ST s*
monad *mutable* during the whole program? (As is possible in Ocamel)?
you can find an example of how to do that at:
http://icfpcontest.cse.ogi.edu/simulator/
look inside module Robo for example. there you will find
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: mutable records
In Haskell one can use existential lists but I doubt about the
efficiency.
Existential lists don't have any special time overhead. All you're
doing is making the typechecker happy about what you're
Scott J. writes:
:
| Sill I want to make objects packed with their objects and
| functions. Doesn't mean that I have to use existential data types?
Sometimes you can avoid using existentials by making all your
object-updating functions return the post-update object explicitly.
For example:
Hi,
Is it possible to define oject
types in Haskell and what does one propose to do it?
Is it possible to define parts of a record
with the help of the ST s monad mutable during
the whole program? (As is possible in Ocamel)?
Thx
Scott
Scott J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Is it possible to define oject types in Haskell and what does one propose to do it?
Depends on what you mean by object types. You can surely
define a record with funcions dubbing as methods and
non-functional values dubbing as object data.
Is it possible
, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: mutable records
Scott J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Is it possible to define oject types in Haskell and what does one
propose to do it?
Depends on what you mean by object types. You can surely
define a record with funcions dubbing as methods and
non-functional
In Haskell one can use existential lists but I doubt about the
efficiency.
Existential lists don't have any special time overhead. All you're
doing is making the typechecker happy about what you're doing.
Of course, there's a small overhead in that any function you invoke on
that object
10 matches
Mail list logo
