On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Corentin Dupont
I made some modifications based on your suggestions (see below). I made a two parameters class: *class (Typeable e, Typeable d) => Handled e d * Because after all what I want is to associate an event with its type parameters.
I think our approaches are diverging. In particular, I don't think you want to use both newPlayer :: Event Player newRule :: Event Rule and also data NewPlayer data NewRule without a very good reason. These are representations of the same relationship (the attachment/joining of "New" Event semantics to a Player or Rule) at different levels in the abstraction hierarchy. All Handled e d type class is doing is attempting to (1) constrain some types, (2) "equate"/join NewPlayer and newPlayer (as far as I can see), which would be unnecessary without either NewPlayer or newPlayer. That said, you can definitely have a good reason I'm not aware of. So what is your use case for NewPlayer, for example?
I don't know why I cannot implement you suggestion to restrict the instances of Event: *data **(Handled e d) => **Event e = Event deriving (Typeable, Eq) *gives me a *Not in scope: type variable `d'*
Yeah, that's undecidable. What would happen if you had instance Handled New Player instance Handled New Rule and you tried to make an (Event Player)? The compiler couldn't decide between the instances. In principle, functional dependencies (or type families, as you mentioned) would make d depend on e uniquely, but I don't think the data declaration is smart enough to figure it out, since it appears to be using scoping rules to deal with the possibility of undecidability. If you want to try, the syntax would be: {-# LANGUAGE FunctionalDependencies #-} class Handled e d | e -> d where -- ... Of course, apparently the situation with multiple conflicting instances "should" never happen if you use NewPlayer and NewRule and so on. But that compiler can't know it unless you tell it somehow.
But apart from that it works very well! It's quite a nice interface! Also just to know, is there a way of getting ride of all these "Typeable"?
Yes, but you would just be re-inventing the wheel. I pretty much constantly keep "deriving (Data, Eq, Ord, Show, Typeable)" in my clipboard. I don't use Typeable (or Data), but useful libraries do. For example, SafeCopy. I mean that I have events like:
Message String UserEvent String That have a "data" of the same type, but they are not related.
Using my old version of the code for reference, nothing is stopping you from doing: data Event e = New | Message String | User String
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification, DeriveDataTypeable, MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
*module Events (addEvent, newPlayer, newRule) where
import Control.Monad import Data.List import Data.Typeable
newtype Player = P Int deriving Typeable newtype Rule = R Int deriving Typeable data Event e = Event deriving (Typeable, Eq)
data NewPlayer deriving Typeable data NewRule deriving Typeable
newPlayer :: Event NewPlayer newPlayer = Event newRule :: Event NewRule newRule = Event
class (Typeable e, Typeable d) => Handled e d instance Handled NewPlayer Player instance Handled NewRule Rule
data EventHandler = forall e d . (Handled e d) => EH (Event e) (d -> IO ())
addEvent :: (Handled e d) => Event e -> (d -> IO ()) -> [EventHandler] -> [EventHandler] addEvent e h ehs = (EH e h):ehs
triggerEvent :: (Handled e d) => Event e -> d -> [EventHandler] -> IO ()
triggerEvent e d ehs = do let r = find (\(EH myEvent _) -> cast e == Just myEvent) ehs case r of Nothing -> return () Just (EH _ h) -> case cast h of
Just castedH -> castedH d Nothing -> return ()
-- TESTS
h1 :: Player -> IO () h1 (P a) = putStrLn $ "Welcome Player " ++ (show a) ++ "!" h2 :: Rule -> IO () h2 (R a) = putStrLn $ "New Rule " ++ (show a) eventList1 = addEvent newPlayer h1 [] eventList2 = addEvent newRule h2 eventList1
trigger1 = triggerEvent newPlayer (P 1) eventList2 --Yelds "Welcome Player 1!" trigger2 = triggerEvent newRule (R 2) eventList2 --Yelds "New Rule 2" *