Hi Conal,
Thank you for replying.
My aim is to find the simplest possible implementation of the semantics you
describe in Push-pull FRP, so the denotational semantics are already in place.
I guess what I am looking for is a simple translation of a denotational program
into an imperative one. My intuition tells me that such a translation is
possible, maybe even trivial, but I am not sure how to reason about
correctness.
While I like the idea of TCMs very much, they do not seem to be applicable for
things that lack a denotation, such as IO. Maybe it is a question of how to
relate denotational semantics to operational ones?
Hans
On 24 apr 2013, at 02:18, Conal Elliott wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> Do you have a denotation for your representation (a specification for your
> implementation)? If so, it will likely guide you to exactly the right type
> class instances, via the principle of type class morphisms (TCMs). If you
> don't have a denotation, I wonder how you could decide what correctness means
> for any aspect of your implementation.
>
> Good luck, and let me know if you want some help exploring the TCM process,
>
> -- Conal
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Hans Höglund <h...@hanshoglund.se> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am experimenting with various implementation styles for classical FRP. My
> current thoughts are on a continuation-style push implementation, which can
> be summarized as follows.
>
> > newtype EventT m r a = E { runE :: (a -> m r) -> m r -> m r }
> > newtype ReactiveT m r a = R { runR :: (m a -> m r) -> m r }
> > type Event = EventT IO ()
> > type Reactive = ReactiveT IO ()
>
> The idea is that events allow subscription of handlers, which are
> automatically unsubscribed after the continuation has finished, while
> reactives allow observation of a shared state until the continuation has
> finished.
>
> I managed to write the following Applicative instance
>
> > instance Applicative (ReactiveT m r) where
> > pure a = R $ \k -> k (pure a)
> > R f <*> R a = R $ \k -> f (\f' -> a (\a' -> k $ f' <*> a'))
>
> But I am stuck on finding a suitable Monad instance. I notice the similarity
> between my types and the ContT monad and have a feeling this similarity could
> be used to clean up my instance code, but am not sure how to proceed. Does
> anyone have an idea, or a pointer to suitable literature.
>
> Best regards,
> Hans
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
