From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA20149 for caml-red; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:22:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA10703 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:42:06 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e7PFfxv10756;
	Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:41:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from vouillon@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA10303; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:41:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <20000825174159.39156@pauillac.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:41:59 +0200
From: Jerome Vouillon <Jerome.Vouillon@inria.fr>
To: John Max Skaller <skaller@maxtal.com.au>, Francois.Pottier@inria.fr
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Language Design
References: <000d01c00bb8$fb3e3560$210148bf@dylan> <39A36758.E474CC1E@maxtal.com.au> <20000824111226.28393@pauillac.inria.fr> <39A58286.81AEAF47@maxtal.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1
In-Reply-To: <39A58286.81AEAF47@maxtal.com.au>; from John Max Skaller on Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 06:16:06AM +1000
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 06:16:06AM +1000, John Max Skaller wrote:
> Francois Pottier wrote:
>  
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:55:36PM +1000, John Max Skaller wrote:
> > > What is _actually_ required is a seamless way to integrate
> > > stateful and function code:
> > 
> > Have you thought about employing some kind of monadic type system?
> 
> 	Yes, but I don't know enough to do it at the moment.
> [Also, it turns out monads are not general enough to write
> web services in, which puts me off a bit]

I think you should really consider using monads. Here is an example.

We define a value of type void to be either a continuation expecting a
string or a final function that do not expect anything.

    type void = Cont of (string -> void)
              | Term of (unit -> unit)

This is a procedure that does nothing.

    let unit : void = Term (fun () -> ())

And here is a possible implementation for read: the input string is
assigned to v and then there is nothing more to do.

    let read (v : string ref) : void = Cont (fun s -> v := s; unit)

The following combinator takes two procedures p and p' and make them
be evaluated in order.

    let rec seq (p : void) (p': void) : void =
      match p, p' with
        Cont c, _ ->
          Cont (fun s -> seq (c s) p')
      | Term t, Cont c ->
          Cont (fun s -> t (); c s)
      | Term t, Term t' ->
          Term (fun () -> t (); t' ())

Finally, we have an operator to assign a value v to a reference x.

    let set (x : 'a ref) (v : unit -> 'a) : void = Term (fun () -> x := v ())

Now we can for instance define a procedure that reads to strings and
returns their concatenation. This procedure does not need to know the
actual definition of type void.

    let read2 x =
      let a = ref "" in let b = ref "" in
      seq (read a) (seq (read b) (set x (fun () -> !a ^ !b)))

You can also use some symbols to make it more readable:

    let ($) = seq
    let (-<-) = set
    let read2 x =
      let a = ref "" in
      let b = ref "" in
      read a $
      read b $
      x -<- (fun () -> !a ^ !b)

We can try this procedure. First we define an evaluator. It takes the
input stream and a procedure call as inputs.

    let rec eval l p =
      match l, p with
        _,      Term t -> t ()
      | s :: r, Cont c -> eval r (c s)
      | _              -> ((* Stuck evaluation *))

Then we evaluate read2 when two strings "a" and "b" are given as
input:

  let x = ref "" in eval ["a"; "b"] (read2 x); !x

-- Jerome