[Haskell-cafe] Re: monad subexpressions

Bulat Ziganshin bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 01:26:46 EDT 2007

Hello Claus,

Friday, August 3, 2007, 7:29:32 PM, you wrote:

>> how about *Object.File.Line.CurPtr++ = *AnotherObject.File.Line.CurPtr++  ? ;)

> what's the difference?-)

>     let p = Object.File.Line.CurPtr
>     let q = AnotherObject.File.Line.CurPtr
>     do { w p =<< r q; i p; i q }

back to the assembler future? :)  so-called high-level languages
started with the idea that you don't need to give explicit names to
intermediate results

>> the problem with Haskell is that we need to split C expression into
>> several statements and explicitly specify execution order even when we
>> know that it doesn't matter. ideally, it should be possible to define
>> ++x = modifyIORef x (+1) >> readIORef x
>> *x  = readIORef x

> apart from the prefix symbols (i used one-letter prefix names), you 
> can (as i'm sure you know). and the point of my little exercise was to
> show that instead of doing the splitting by hand at each usage site, 
> we can write lifting combinators that do the splitting behind the scenes.
> what gives haskell aspirations to be a fine imperative language is that
> its abstraction mechanisms work as well for imperative code as for
> functional code.

can you give translation you mean? i don't have anything against
combinators, they just need to be easy to use, don't forcing me to
think where i should put one, as i don't think with lazy code and C
imperative code. and they shouldn't clatter the code, too. just try to
write complex expression using C and these combinators

Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list