Sebastiaan Visser <sfvis...@cs.uu.nl> wrote in article
<d86a7d11-f95f-4a27-a13c-2d78afda2...@cs.uu.nl> in gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
> Suppose I have a list of IO computations that depends on a few very
> time consuming pure operations. The pure operations are not dependent
> on the real world:
>
> > computation :: [IO Int]
> > computation = [
> > smallIOfunc timeConsumingPureOperation0
> > , smallIOfunc timeConsumingPureOperation1
> > , smallIOfunc timeConsumingPureOperation2
> > , smallIOfunc timeConsumingPureOperation3
> > ]
> > where smallIOfunc a = print a >> return a
I take it that, because you "do not really have the control to change
things `deep' inside the code", it is not an option to redefine
computation = [
smallIOfunc x0
, smallIOfunc x1
, smallIOfunc x2
, smallIOfunc x3
]
where smallIOfunc a = print a >> return a
x0 = timeConsumingPureOperation0
x1 = timeConsumingPureOperation1
x2 = timeConsumingPureOperation2
x3 = timeConsumingPureOperation3
Can you define smallIOfunc to be more polymorphic in the monad? That
is, can you define a class of monads (MonadBehavior, let's call it)
that contains member functions for operations (such as print) you want
to perform in smallIOfunc, then write smallIOfunc to be polymorphic
over such a monad? If so, you can then implement two instances of this
class: one for IO and one for a term representation of behavior.
--
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
Who would have thought LISP would come back to life.
Steve Bourne, in an interview about Bourne Shell.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
