On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Jules Bean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Verswyvelen wrote: > >> Not at all, use it for whatever you want to :-) >> >> I'm writing this code because I'm preparing to write a bunch of tutorials >> on FRP, and I first wanted to start with simple console based FRP, e.g. >> making a little text adventure game, where the input/choices of the user >> might be parsed ala parsec, using monadic style, applicative style, and >> arrows, and then doing the same with FRP frameworks like >> > > > This is a really bad place to start a FRP tutorial IMO. > > The interface for 'interact' does not make any promises about the relative > evaluation order of the input list / production order of the output list. > > That's why you are having to play horrible tricks with seq to try to force > the order to be what you want. > > I don't think this is the basis of a robust system or a sensible tutorial. > > Just my 2c. > Interesting feedback, but I don't get the reason really. How is using seq a "horrible trick"? It's there for strict evaluation when you need it, and in this case it was warranted. And as far as saying it's not a good basis for a robust system, I'm also not sure I agree, but a "sensible tutorial", that I could believe as I think it's actually quite difficult to explain these topics to people in a way they're going to understand right away. Could we perhaps bother you to suggest an alternative along with your criticism? It would feel a little more constructive at least (not that I think you were being terribly harsh) Dave
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
