Hi Ralf, > I should have mentioned > http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/OOHaskell/src/PoorMens2/ > (again *not* using OOHaskell) >
It's been an interesting evening. I've been having a go at your poormen's source code and, although it's different from OOHaskell, I still find it very similar in the sense that it's using the same concepts, namely infix operators (for syntactic sugar I assume) and state monads (for mutable data). But I had a look at it anyway ;) >From what I gathered today infix operators are just like ordinary functions, that differ only in the way you pass them parameters. I understand the .?. and .!. operators in your code are shortcuts that apply a function to the parent type, respectively for get and set operations. The only thing I couldn't figure is the reason of using monads. I noticed they (returnIO) were extensively used in the setters and in the .!. operator. Do monads provide features without which this whole thing wouldn't be possible ? What is it exactly they provide in this context ? > A more general and preliminary observation: > the entire approach is potentially more about > object *composition* (and perhaps delegation) > rather than inheritance. That's also the way I see it. Cédric _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
