> WASH is full of wonderful ideas . packed in a not so wonderful syntax. It > is worth to evolve it. > > WASH does force form safety in a similar way to Formlets > <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/formlets>: because the form and the > form read code are generated automatically by a class instance. So there is > no need for, type checking safety > > The problem comes when the form is generated and/or maintained( edited by > some people (some forms have lot of formating in the real world) while the > form handling code is .maintained by some other people, the programmers. > > In this real case , type cheching is very important. > > 2011/3/2 Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> > > Excerpts from Alberto G. Corona's message of Wed Mar 02 20:53:28 +0000 >> 2011: >> > Some time ago I forgot to forward this message to thie ur versus Haskell >> > <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2011-January/088060.html >> >discussion, >> > (as usual) >> > --- >> > The most impressive feature (of ur) is the compile time checking of >> > conformance between the form and the form results. This can be done in >> >> See WASH (-> hackage). So there is a Haskell implementation. There are >> small >> differences though: urweb has nicer URLS which should be much more SEO >> friendly. >> >> From my point of view its not only about forms. Its also about checking >> SQL queries. And urweb seems to do this very well. >> >> Marc Weber >> > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe