On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:16:50AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 04:33:29AM +0000, John Goerzen wrote: > > On a related note, Wash seems to be preserving all sorts of unnecessary > > "state" from previous screens a user visited. > > You do know that the current version of WASH rebuilds the continuation > by repeating all the previous steps, don't you? Until WASH can keep the
Yes. What I don't understand is why. If I have a submit button, and it is passing one value to the next function, and that value is from an entry form on the screen, why would I care about all the previous state? That's my confusion. It seems unnecessary. > Perhaps you don't see the whole power of continuation based approach > to web programming. I will give you an example - when I use WASH, I > often pass first-class functions to from screen to screen, for example > as a way of telling the screen what to do next (a continuation), or as > the most convenient way to do something. It would be quite difficult > to pass those functions as form parameters, so they are being rebuilt > each time from the log. Yeah, that's a neat feature. I'm using it some places, too. It's probably true that I don't understand fully how to exploit it yet. (I wish that I could return something other than () from a screen too.) I just want a way to pass only what I need. Passing lots of stuff is going to make my applications painful for modem users, which unfortnuately make up a large part of the user base. > Are you sure your IO actions will always yield the same result? If so, > the you can safely use unsafe_io. Otherwise you should let was save > the result of them in the log by using io. Excellent, thanks. -- John _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
