Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Phlex,
Sunday, June 3, 2007, 11:41:29 AM, you wrote:
That's precisely the thing i don't understand.
In order to update node 3 with a new pointer, i need to mutate it, so i
need to recreate it, and so on up to node 1.
yes, that's true
Now in this exemple, it's ok since that's a regular tree and the process
can be automated, but when each node has a different type, it can become
quite hairy.
may be all that you need is structure update syntax?
data Planet = Planet { age :: Double
, weight :: Double
.....
}
updatePlanet p = p {age=(age p)*2}
The thing is, now that i have my planet p... i want to change it's age
... and get back the new state of the universe...
So i need to do something like this :
changePlanetAge universe galaxy planet age = ...lots of code, returning
a new universe
And the same code for all functions updating any of the properties of my
planet ...
And the same code for all functions updating properties of a country on
this planet...
while in the OO paradigm, i only need to do
changlePlanetAge planet age = ...just what you wrote
I understand that the advantages of functional programming do come at a
cost ... And i'm pretty sure you guys came up with some way to avoid
expressing all that upward copying, although it must happen somehow.
I'm not sure i'm being clear here.
Carkos
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
