So, why not use this definition? Is there something special about ST you are trying to preserve? -- minimal complete definition: -- Ref, newRef, and either modifyRef or both readRef and writeRef. class Monad m => MonadRef m where type Ref m :: * -> * newRef :: a -> m (Ref m a) readRef :: Ref m a -> m a writeRef :: Ref m a -> a -> m () modifyRef :: Ref m a -> (a -> a) -> m a -- returns old value readRef r = modifyRef r id writeRef r a = modifyRef r (const a) >> return () modifyRef r f = do a <- readRef r writeRef r (f a) return a instance MonadRef (ST s) where type Ref (ST s) = STRef s newRef = newSTRef readRef = readSTRef writeRef = writeSTRef instance MonadRef IO where type Ref IO = IORef newRef = newIORef readRef = readIORef writeRef = writeIORef instance MonadRef STM where type Ref STM = TVar newRef = newTVar readRef = readTVar writeRef = writeTVar Then you get to lift all of the above into a monad transformer stack, MTL-style: instance MonadRef m => MonadRef (StateT s m) where type Ref (StateT s m) = Ref m newRef = lift . newRef readRef = lift . readRef writeRef r = lift . writeRef r and so on, and the mention of the state thread type in your code is just gone, hidden inside Ref m. It's still there in the type of the monad; you can't avoid that: newtype MyMonad s a = MyMonad { runMyMonad :: StateT Int (ST s) a } deriving (Monad, MonadState, MonadRef) But code that relies on MonadRef runs just as happily in STM, or IO, as it does in ST. -- ryan 2009/2/19 Louis Wasserman <wasserman.louis@gmail.com>:
It does. In the most recent version, the full class declaration runs
class MonadST m where type StateThread m liftST :: ST (StateThread m) a -> m a
and the StateThread propagates accordingly.
Louis Wasserman wasserman.louis@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Sittampalam, Ganesh <ganesh.sittampalam@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Louis Wasserman wrote:
Overnight I had the following thought, which I think could work rather well. The most basic implementation of the idea is as follows:
class MonadST s m | m -> s where liftST :: ST s a -> m a
instance MonadST s (ST s) where ... instance MonadST s m => MonadST ...
Like MonadIO, isn't it?
I think it should be, except that you need to track 's' somewhere.
Ganesh
============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
==============================================================================
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe