If you add an instance of IsString to handle leaf construction you can get it down to "Fruits" +> do "Apple" "Mango" "Arbitrary" +> do "1" "..." But I also don't see the point of doing this in a monad. -Edward On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Yves Parès wrote:

You could turn 'insertSubTree' into and operator, and shorten "insertLeaf"

createTree = do "Fruits" +> do leaf "Apple" leaf "Mango "Arbitrary" +> do leaf "1" -- and so on...

It's a little bit more concise. But I fail to see the use of TreeContext being an instance of Monad.

2011/3/22 C K Kashyap

...

Hi, With my "edsl", one can describe a tree like this -

import TreeEdsl import Data.Tree

createTree :: TreeContext String () createTree = do insertSubTree "Fruits" $ do insertLeaf "Apple" insertLeaf "Mango" insertSubTree "Arbitrary" $ do insertSubTree "Numbers" $ do insertLeaf "1" insertLeaf "2" insertLeaf "3" insertSubTree "Letters" $ do insertLeaf "A" insertLeaf "B" insertLeaf "C" return () main = do tree <- process "root" createTree putStrLn (drawTree (fmap show tree)) return ()

and get a tree like this -

"root" | +- "Arbitrary" | | | +- "Letters" | | | | | +- "C" | | | | | +- "B" | | | | | `- "A" | | | `- "Numbers" | | | +- "3" | | | +- "2" | | | `- "1" | `- "Fruits" | +- "Mango" | `- "Apple"

My code is here

https://github.com/ckkashyap/LearningPrograms/blob/master/Haskell/edsl/TreeE...

I'd appreciate your feedback on this. Does this qualify to be a edsl?

Regards, Kashyap

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

If you add an instance of IsString to handle leaf construction you can get it down to     "Fruits" +> do        "Apple"        "Mango"     "Arbitrary" +> do        "1"        "..." But I also don't see the point of doing this in a monad.

Having it in a monad has the same benefit as blaze-html being built in a monad: the square braces and comas for the list are gone. Although it does leave you with an awkward type parameter hanging around. And the same as the Binary Put monad vs. the Binary Builder type. I prefer the monoid interface vs. the monad interface to both of these, but I can see the appeal. Antoine

-Edward

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Yves Parès wrote:

...

You could turn 'insertSubTree' into and operator, and shorten "insertLeaf"

createTree = do     "Fruits" +> do                 leaf "Apple"                 leaf "Mango     "Arbitrary" +> do                    leaf "1"     -- and so on...

It's a little bit more concise. But I fail to see the use of TreeContext being an instance of Monad.

2011/3/22 C K Kashyap

...

Hi, With my "edsl", one can describe a tree like this - import TreeEdsl import Data.Tree createTree :: TreeContext String () createTree = do insertSubTree "Fruits" $ do insertLeaf "Apple" insertLeaf "Mango" insertSubTree "Arbitrary" $ do insertSubTree "Numbers" $ do insertLeaf "1" insertLeaf "2" insertLeaf "3" insertSubTree "Letters" $ do insertLeaf "A" insertLeaf "B" insertLeaf "C" return () main = do tree <- process "root" createTree putStrLn (drawTree (fmap show tree)) return ()

and get a tree like this - "root" | +- "Arbitrary" |  | |  +- "Letters" |  |  | |  |  +- "C" |  |  | |  |  +- "B" |  |  | |  |  `- "A" |  | |  `- "Numbers" |     | |     +- "3" |     | |     +- "2" |     | |     `- "1" | `- "Fruits"    |    +- "Mango"    |    `- "Apple"

My code is here

https://github.com/ckkashyap/LearningPrograms/blob/master/Haskell/edsl/TreeE... I'd appreciate your feedback on this. Does this qualify to be a edsl? Regards, Kashyap _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

A shallow embedding would typically use just functions - a famous example is Paul Hudak's "region server". A deep embedding would build syntax - represented with data types - and interpret the syntax or compile the syntax for another use (so called "off-shoring" e.g. Conal Elliott's Pan).

On 23 March 2011 10:28, C K Kashyap wrote:

I am not able to ascertain  if what you are saying is consistent with  http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Embedded_domain_specific_language Regards, Kashyap

Well - I'm not sure if the description of a shallow embedding on that page is particularly enlightening...