But then since the library is using (..) that would mean everything is
exported?
For instance testing on the Request data:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/http-streams/0.4.0.0/doc/html/sr...
module Network.Http.Types ( Request(..),
data Request = Request { qMethod :: !Method, qHost
:: Maybe ByteString, qPath :: !ByteString, qBody
:: !EntityBody, qExpect :: !ExpectMode, qHeaders ::
!Headers }
----
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
import Network.Http.Client
main = do
q <- buildRequest $ do
http GET "/"
setAccept "text/html"
print q
print $ qMethod q
---
test-hs.hs:11:17: Not in scope: `qMethod'
With regards to what Daniel wrote, I realize my email was confusing. When I
was talking about warnings I was talking of another problem entirely, that
i probably should not have mentioned in this context.
In that other context I had data declarations for types that I would
instanciate only from Data.Aeson parsing from JSON. I would then only use
pattern matching on the instances, never call the "accessor functions" by
themselves, then I get a warning that they're unused which annoys me. But
it's quite unrelated to this mail...
Emmanuel
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Gabriel Gonzalez
** Assume you have the following type:
data Type = T { field1 :: String, field2 :: Double }
... and you want to export the type `Type` and the acessors `field1` and `field2`, but not the constructor `T`, then you would write:
module MyModule ( Type(field1, field2) ) where
Another way to do this is like so:
module MyModule ( Type, field1, field2 ) where
That's perfectly legal, too.
Normally, when you write something like:
module MyModule ( Type(..) ) where
the ".." expands out to:
module MyModule ( Type(T, field1, field2) ) where
All the first solution does is just leave out the T constructor from those exports.
On 03/24/2013 09:14 AM, Emmanuel Touzery wrote:
hi,
i was looking at the response type in http-streams:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/http-streams/0.4.0.0/doc/html/Ne...
I'm used that simply the data type and all its "members" are visible -- the functions to access its contents. But in this case on the HTML documentation the response type looks like it has no members. And the author has defined like "public accessors" later in the code:
getStatusCode :: Response -> StatusCode getStatusCode = pStatusCode
So I'm not even sure how he achieved that the members are not visible, the data are exported with (..) as is usually done... And the other thing is why would you do that.. You could name the member getStatusCode in the first place, but then it might increase encapsulation to hide it (depending on how he managed to hide the members).. But did you then make it impossible to deconstruct a Response through pattern matching? That sounds like a minus... Although pattern matching on a data with 6 fields is always going to be a pain and decreasing the chances for modifying the data type without breaking compatibility.
These "members" are also causing me problems in other situations, for instance I have some cases when I use a data type only a few times and with -Wall the compiler tells me I don't use the accessor; in fact I read that value from the data, but through pattern matching/deconstruction only, not through that particular function. I'm thinking to try to hide the warning as I think my code is correct.
Anyway I'm curious on the mechanism used by that library... I've already noticed a few nice tricks in this library, like a small state monad to take optional parameters, much more elegant than any other mechanism i've seen so far to achieve the same effect.
Thank you!
Emmanuel
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing listBeginners@haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners