Maciej Marcin Piechotka
Does someone know a cleaner, more elegant solution? Encapsulating the state in the iteratee's input type is not an option.
The first thing that come to my mind.
runWithState :: Iteratee a (StateT s m) b -> s -> Iteratee a m (b, s) runWithState i s = do let onDone v st = return (Right (v, st)) onCont c err = return (Left (c, err)) (i', s') <- runStateT (runIter i onDone onCont) s case i' of Left (c, err) -> icont (\str -> runWithState (c str) s') err Right (v, st) -> idone (v, s') st
I believe it is equivalent to:
runWithState :: Iteratee a (StateT s m) b -> s -> Iteratee a m (b, s) runWithState i s = do let onDone v st = do s' <- get return (idone (v, s') st) onCont c err = do s' <- get return (icont (\str -> runWithState (c str) s') err) joinIM $ evalStateT (runIter i onDone onCont) s
Thanks for the code. It might come in handy, but for the current implementation I decided not to use this approach, but instead to generalize over 'm', which gives me better composability, for example: MailMonad m => Iteratee SmtpResponse m () Library users can write their own monads and make them instances of MailMonad, which is very easy, because there is only one function to implement. This seems to solve my original problem.
I haven't tested but it compiles so it should work.
I loved that statement -- specifically because it's not far-fetched in Haskell. You wouldn't dare to write anything like that in any of the more commonly used languages. =) Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://ertes.de/