[reactive] New implementation: Reactant (99% incomplete)

[Conal Elliott]

By all means, please make use of the Reactive QuickCheck tests (many/most of
which Bob wrote) as you go.

I'd love to see unamb/lub get more attention as well.  It's a tremendously
powerful tool for improving the modularity of pure, functional programming.
Perhaps as much as laziness.  Sure it raises implementation challenges, but
so did laziness.

Regards,  - Conal

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Thomas Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 30 Jul 2009, at 00:18, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
>
>  In the interest of throwing code out early, at
>> http://github.com/Baughn/Reactant/tree/master there is now the first
>> draft of a different approach to Conal-style FRP.
>>
>> Well, I say "first draft", but the code in there currently only
>> implements ITime - eg. Improving Time. Fortunately that's also the
>> hardest bit; the source of most of the bugs, and the reason to use
>> unamb.
>>
>> This implementation doesn't use unamb, though. Instead, I'm using a
>> push-style approach, where the various function calls - compare, etc.
>> - use semaphores to block until the ITimes they are comparing are
>> sufficiently defined for them to return an answer.
>>
>>
>> It's my hope that, although this approach is also quite bug-prone, I
>> will be able to side-step the issues with unamb this way. If nothing
>> else, performance should increase noticably; there is no need for this
>> system to fork any threads except to deal with timeouts, thus forking
>> happens considerably less often than with unamb.
>>
>> I'll hopefully have more for you in a few days. Until then, you may be
>> entertained by looking closely at the rather eldritch code, and if
>> anyone spots a potential bug, that's just a bonus.
>>
>
> Glad to see there's (yet more) people working on fun ideas for how to get
> this lovely API to work well.  Something I'd suggest though – Conal's
> reactive has quite a large set of tests, mostly checking that the
> implementations of the various classes respect the laws they're meant to,
> but also checking a few other things.  It'd be really lovely if you could
> copy/paste them over to check you're sticking to the semantics as it was
> originally envisaged (IIRC, conal's doesn't quite, but is very close).
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob_______________________________________________
>
> Reactive mailing list
> Reactive at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/reactive
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/reactive/attachments/20090730/8b93dacd/attachment-0001.html