[Haskell-cafe] Parallel interruptible computations

[Chris Wong]

Hi Corentin

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Corentin Dupont
<corentin.dupont at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> thanks for the nice answers!
> I'll give you a little bit more context: I'm designing an event engine. I
> have instances for Applicative, Alternative, Monad, MonadPlus.
> It's like that:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> The Applicative instance is good if you have two events and you want both of
> them to fire ("and"). The Alternative instance is good if you have two
> events and you need only one to fire ("or").
> But what if you have several events, but you need only a part of them to
> fire in order to construct a final result? Say you have 10 events, but the 5
> first to fire will give you enough data to construct a result.
> You cannot do that with Applicative/Alternative because with Applicative,
> you need *all* events results, with Alternative you need *only one*.
>
> That's why I added this primitive "ShortcutEvents" in my DSL, but I'm not
> convinced by it. So my questions are:
> 1. is ShortcutEvents expressible in term of
> Applicative/Alternative/Monad/MonadPlus?
> 2. if not is their a well known typeclass that covers this case?
> 3. if not is their a better way to write it? I especially don't like the
> list of Event, I'd prefer a more generic writing. What if I want a structure
> containing the events, instead of a list? What if I want event of various
> types (say a pair (Event a, Event b) for example)?
>
> Note that I'm not working with streams of events (like in traditional FRP
> frameworks): just with single events (the "BaseEvents") that I want to
> combine with each other. Those "BaseEvents" will fire only once. The final
> result of the combination of events will trigger a callback.

There's one thing I don't quite understand: why is Event expressed as
a free monad/applicative structure? Based on your description alone,
it sounds like

    type Event a = Maybe (BaseEvent a)

would suffice. Or am I missing something?

Chris