Hello, My impression is that using existential types where possible
will result in more complete type checking than Data.Dynamic but I'm
not sure since I haven't yet tried Data.Dynamic in my own code. Can
someone confirm if this is right?
Best
Keith
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Christian Maeder
You could cast your parser result "a" to Dynamic using Data.Dynamic.toDyn (and derive Typeable instances for all involved types).
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base-4.2.0.0/Data-Dyna...
Using an existential types may be another alternative.
Cheers Christian
rodrigo.bonifacio schrieb:
Hi all,
I have a family of parsers that return either (Success t) or (Fail), using the following data type:
data ParserResult a = Success a | Fail String deriving (Read, Show, Eq, Ord)
isSuccess (Success _) = True isSuccess (Fail _) = False ...
I want to add the results of different parsers to a list. Such as:
m1 = parseFirstModel file1 -- it returns a ParserResult of t1 m2 = parseSecondModel file2 -- it returns a ParserResult of t2
ps = [m1, m2]
In such a way that I could write something like:
if and (map isSuccess ps) then process m1 m2 else ...
Actually, in the real program I have to check more than two input models. However, since Lists do only hold elements of a same type, I couldn't proceed in this way. Which improvements to the ParserResult data type should I wrote in order to proceed as I want to.
Best regards,
Rodrigo.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- keithsheppard.name