So, why not use this definition? Is there something special about ST
you are trying to preserve?
-- minimal complete definition:
-- Ref, newRef, and either modifyRef or both readRef and writeRef.
class Monad m => MonadRef m where
type Ref m :: * -> *
newRef :: a -> m (Ref m a)
readRef :: Ref m a -> m a
writeRef :: Ref m a -> a -> m ()
modifyRef :: Ref m a -> (a -> a) -> m a -- returns old value
readRef r = modifyRef r id
writeRef r a = modifyRef r (const a) >> return ()
modifyRef r f = do
a <- readRef r
writeRef r (f a)
return a
instance MonadRef (ST s) where
type Ref (ST s) = STRef s
newRef = newSTRef
readRef = readSTRef
writeRef = writeSTRef
instance MonadRef IO where
type Ref IO = IORef
newRef = newIORef
readRef = readIORef
writeRef = writeIORef
instance MonadRef STM where
type Ref STM = TVar
newRef = newTVar
readRef = readTVar
writeRef = writeTVar
Then you get to lift all of the above into a monad transformer stack, MTL-style:
instance MonadRef m => MonadRef (StateT s m) where
type Ref (StateT s m) = Ref m
newRef = lift . newRef
readRef = lift . readRef
writeRef r = lift . writeRef r
and so on, and the mention of the state thread type in your code is
just gone, hidden inside Ref m. It's still there in the type of the
monad; you can't avoid that:
newtype MyMonad s a = MyMonad { runMyMonad :: StateT Int (ST s) a }
deriving (Monad, MonadState, MonadRef)
But code that relies on MonadRef runs just as happily in STM, or IO,
as it does in ST.
-- ryan
2009/2/19 Louis Wasserman <wasserman.lo...@gmail.com>:
> It does. In the most recent version, the full class declaration runs
>
> class MonadST m where
> type StateThread m
> liftST :: ST (StateThread m) a -> m a
>
> and the StateThread propagates accordingly.
>
> Louis Wasserman
> wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Sittampalam, Ganesh
> <ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
>>
>> Henning Thielemann wrote:
>> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Louis Wasserman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Overnight I had the following thought, which I think could work
>> >> rather well. The most basic implementation of the idea is as
>> >> follows:
>> >>
>> >> class MonadST s m | m -> s where
>> >> liftST :: ST s a -> m a
>> >>
>> >> instance MonadST s (ST s) where ...
>> >> instance MonadST s m => MonadST ...
>> >
>> > Like MonadIO, isn't it?
>>
>> I think it should be, except that you need to track 's' somewhere.
>>
>> Ganesh
>>
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>> communications disclaimer:
>>
>> http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
