On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Luke Palmer <lrpal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Tom Hawkins <tomahawk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One argument for option 2 is to carry forward datatypes to the target
>> language. For example, if you want to describe a state machine with
>> the state as a type:
>
> What do you mean "carry forward". Can you elaborate on your simple
> example? What about it requires option 2?
Well in the case of Atom, it would be very convenient to write code like this:
data StopLight = Red | Yellow | Green
changeLight :: V StopLight -> Atom ()
changeLight light = light <== light'
where
light' = case value light of
Red -> Green
Yellow -> Red
Green -> Yellow
The problem is the case expression is evaluated at compile-time, when
what we really want is to "carry forward" the case expression to the
run-time environment (aka. the generated code). This example
illustrates the use of a simple enumerated type. But full-blown
algebraic data types would also be useful in the run-time. For
example, a Maybe type could be used to represent a valid signal: Just
validValue or Nothing if the signal is invalid.
Of course this is not a limitation if the run-time and compile-time is
the same environment, i.e. Haskell. However, if the target is a
different language, such as C in the case of Atom, then the full power
of algebraic data types are lost with light embedded domain specific
languages.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
