Does that mean there is no place to store state while running the interpreter and that I have to put the state elsewhere such as a file? I was hoping to avoid that as I'm only prototyping at this stage and don't want to write a persistent layer just yet. Thanks -John On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Davie wrote:

On 8 Dec 2008, at 01:28, John Ky wrote:

Hi,

...

Is the following safe?

moo :: TVar Int moo = unsafePerformIO $ newTVarIO 1

I'm interested in writing a stateful application, and I wanted to start with writing some IO functions that did stuff on some state and then test them over long periods of time in GHCi.

I was worried I might be depending on some guarantees that aren't actually there, like moo being discarded and recreated inbetween invocations of different functions.

Define safe... In this case though, I would guess it's not safe. The compiler is free to call moo zero, one or many times depending on its evaluation strategy, and when it's demanded. It's possible that your TVar will get created many times, and different values returned by the "constant" moo.

That sounds pretty unsafe to me.

Bob

Inline. On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:

2008/12/7 John Ky

...

Does that mean there is no place to store state while running the interpreter and that I have to put the state elsewhere such as a file? I was hoping to avoid that as I'm only prototyping at this stage and don't want to write a persistent layer just yet.

Bob is right, that technically it is unsafe. However, in GHC (I can't speak for the others) you can make it safe by forcing it not to inline. Then, IIRC, you are guaranteed (only in GHC, not in Haskell) that it will be only created once:

moo :: TVar Int {-# NOINLINE moo #-} moo = unsafePerformIO $ newTVarIO 1

Will keep that in mind.

Correct, you cannot have global state in safe Haskell. Make of that what you will, YMMV, personally I like it (it has positive implications in terms of semantics and reasoning). You have to put state elsewhere, but "such as a file" is a little extreme. Make it at the GHCi prompt (if there is more than a teeny bit of initialization, I usually define a helper function to make this as easy as possible).

You mean like this? Prelude> x <- GHC.Conc.atomically (GHC.Conc.newTVar 1) Prelude> GHC.Conc.atomically $ GHC.Conc.readTVar x 1 I could live with that. Then pass it around or put your computation in a ReaderT (same thing).

You're going to be passing it around when you write your real application anyway, right?

Will need to read up on ReaderT. Thanks for the tip. Also, as your application matures, you know your persistence layer is

probably already done for you in Data.Binary :-)

Awesome. Thanks -John

Luke

...

Thanks

-John

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Davie wrote:

...

On 8 Dec 2008, at 01:28, John Ky wrote:

Hi,

...

Is the following safe?

moo :: TVar Int moo = unsafePerformIO $ newTVarIO 1

I'm interested in writing a stateful application, and I wanted to start with writing some IO functions that did stuff on some state and then test them over long periods of time in GHCi.

I was worried I might be depending on some guarantees that aren't actually there, like moo being discarded and recreated inbetween invocations of different functions.

Define safe... In this case though, I would guess it's not safe. The compiler is free to call moo zero, one or many times depending on its evaluation strategy, and when it's demanded. It's possible that your TVar will get created many times, and different values returned by the "constant" moo.

That sounds pretty unsafe to me.

Bob

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