Alright, I'll give this a shot. I've never used monad transformers
before, so it should be interesting :)
On 6/23/10, Daniel Fischer
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 23:48:42, Jordan Cooper wrote:
Well, two things that I guess are important to mention:
In my program, it's not Foo and Bar, but Cards and Players. Any player can potentially act on any card, even if it's not their own, thus I felt they probably shouldn't be part of the same state (though perhaps I am wrong in this).
Secondly, as to why I wanted to use a monad here, importantFunction (which is called playerTurn in the real program) would contain a series of functions that would modify Cards and Players, not just one each as in my initial example. Thus it seems like I'd have to end up with let foo... let foo'... etc. which, from my reading in RWH, seems to be an acceptable use for a State monad.
Thanks for your answer, and to Matthew for the encouragement :)
Maybe a Monad transformer would be helpful, something along the lines of
StateT Player (State Card) foo
then you can work in the inner Monad (State Card) via lift.
fooBar = do cardResult <- lift cardAction playerResult <- playerAction cardResult return (cardResult, playerResult)