Dear Luke, thanks for your answers....
> If SelectScecario is used for other purposes, then give an explicit
> cast function
Sure, as I mentioned, we have different transformations and it would be worth to filter a list of transformations by a particular type or even apply the list of transformations in a particular order considering their type.
> toTransformation :: SelectScenario -> Transformation
> toTransformation (SelectScenario ids) = Transformation {
> (<+>) = {- implementation of (<+>) just as if it were a class method -}
> }
I understand your idea, but I will have to implement several variations of "toTransformation", one for each kind of transformation. Moreover, I couldn't
realize how is possible to define a function that could be applied to different transformations without using type classes--- I have to restrict the
types of argument of such a function. Moreover, I couldn't figure out what are the benefits of your solution. Please, if possible, could you elaborate
that a bit more, in order that I could understand why your design is better (I mean, more legible, reusable or concise)?
Thanks in advance,
Rodrigo.
Em 01/12/2009 22:44, Luke Palmer < lrpalmer(a)gmail.com > escreveu:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, rodrigo.bonifacio
wrote:
> Thanks Luke.
>
> In fact I, will have different implementations of the Transformation type.
> Something like:
>
> data SelectScenarios = SelectScenarios {
>
> scIds :: [Id]
>
> }
What is this different type buying you? You can never "downcast" to it later.
> And then I should be able to make SelectScenarios a kind of Transformation.
> So I think that I really need a class. What do you think about it?
>
> instance Transformation SelectScenario where
>
> (<+>) ....
So instead of making a type and an instance, just implement it
directly as a Transformation:
selectScenario :: [Id] -> Transformation
selectScenario ids = Transformation {
(<+>) = {- whatever implementation you gave for (<+>) above, using ids -}
}
If the only purpose of SelectScenario (your type) is to be used
polymorphically as a Transformation, then this approach is isomorphic
-- i.e. anything you can do with the existential type trick you can do
with this approach.
If SelectScecario is used for other purposes, then give an explicit
cast function
toTransformation :: SelectScenario -> Transformation
toTransformation (SelectScenario ids) = Transformation {
(<+>) = {- implementation of (<+>) just as if it were a class method -}
}
Existential types only buy you power when the quantified variable
appears more than once on the right hand side, for example: forall a.
Num a => (a,a). But even those can usually be factored out into more
direct representations (I seem to recall Oleg has a proof that they
always can, actually).
Luke
