Depending on how you construct your predicates, you may be able to capture their composition... And then serialise that.

For example:

If you were doing some sort of range intersection predicate construction ~

    R1 n R2 n R3

Could be represented as a list of those ranges [(l1,r1),(l2,r2),(l3,r3)]. Basically, instead of constructing a predicate function directly, you would assemble a data-structure representing the essence of the predicate, then convert that to both a function for evaluation, as well as a string for serialisation. This would also allow you to perform some "optimisation" before serialisation which could be fun.

Do you have some examples of what the predicates look like?


 - Lyndon

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 8:55 PM, martin <martin.drautzburg@web.de> wrote:
Hello all,

in my program, I do stuff with predicates (a->Bool). For the most part this representation is just fine, but at the very
end I need to convert a resulting predicate into a String so I can write it to a file.

Wenn I represent my predicates as Lists or Sets, then this is doable and I am tempted to do it this way. The only other
option I could come up with was to have a representation of "everything", which would in my case be large (10^8) but
finite. Then I could construct a List or a Set at the very end, as [x | x<-everything, p x] without having explicit sets
in the intermediate steps.

I cannot see any other option, but I thought I better ask.
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners