From: Arnaud Spiwack <Arnaud.Spiwack@lix.polytechnique.fr>
To: Anthony Tavener <anthony.tavener@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A use-case for first-class modules... out of curiosity is there another way?
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:21:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMoPVjfcJ5TgnrQfBLiQEPh8iXqwRKiyXDnxx-ksB125D+xKOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN=ouMTG6+pqzNKcp46z76akQj2Dx1c2KsdE30Bu9T=BWB8yJA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4098 bytes --]
In this particular case this is just a case of existentially quantified.
You can do it with first-class module or gadt (both are convenient), or
with a clever encoding which only uses record and polymorphic fields. You
can read all about it here :
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2004/01/52732867110697f55650778d883ae5e9.fr.html
On 7 August 2012 03:48, Anthony Tavener <anthony.tavener@gmail.com> wrote:
> Embedding "database" features into other modules.
>
> First-class modules are allowing me to neatly unpack table implementations
> into
> other modules, using local types.
>
> This is really quite basic, but I wonder if I could have done this before
> first-class modules, and without leveraging the object system? I also don't
> recall seeing first-class modules used for something like this.
>
> So, is there another way to do this, aside from the object system? It's
> very
> much like creating a basic object.
>
> This is an extracted and simplified example...
> --------------------
>
> module Db = struct
>
> (* Signature for a single 'table' in the database, elements of type t. *)
> module type S = sig
> (* Full implementation relies on a Key module for different key types
> than 'int' *)
> type t
> val get : int -> t
> val set : int -> t -> unit
> val del : int -> unit
> val iter : (int -> t -> unit) -> unit
> val fold : (int -> t -> 'a -> 'a) -> 'a -> 'a
> end
>
> (* Instantiates storage for a table, and returns FC module to interact
> with the store. *)
> let create_with_default (type s) ?(size=19) default =
> (* Full implementation is parameterized by Key and Table modules *)
> let h = Hashtbl.create size in
> let module H = struct
> type t = s
> let get (id:int) =
> try Hashtbl.find h id
> with Not_found -> default
> let set id (v:t) = Hashtbl.replace h id v
> let del id = Hashtbl.remove h id
> let iter f = Hashtbl.iter f h
> let fold f init = Hashtbl.fold f h init
> end in
> (module H : S with type t = s)
>
> end
>
> (* An example table... *)
> module Location = struct
> let unknown = "Unknown"
> include (val (Db.create_with_default unknown) : S with type t = string)
> (* Location might have a bunch of other functionality as well... *)
> end
>
> (* and basic usage... *)
> # Location.get 1;;
> - : Location.t = "Unknown"
> # Location.set 1 "Mars";;
> - : unit = ()
> # Location.get 1;;
> - : Location.t = "Mars"
>
> --------------------
> Some background on what this is for: (skip unless you're interested!)
>
> I use a "component architecture" with most games -- basically a database of
> properties keyed off "game object IDs". I thought this was a very powerful
> feature in old MUDs/MUSHs. It's one of the first things I tried making
> when I
> started in OCaml, but I had some difficulties and ended up explicity
> instantiating hashtables or maps in the global context of various modules.
> Sloppy, but workable. (The reason I had difficulty is because I was trying
> to
> create a database of tables which were created at runtime -- not statically
> known.)
>
> Recently I decided to fix this mess. I had many modules, each which tended
> to
> have a corresponding "table". Eg. Characteristics, Size, Wounds, Faction,
> Inventory, etc. So ideally I wanted a convenient way to embed "database"
> functions into such modules while declaring the implementation of the
> underlying datastore (hashtable, map, whatever).
>
> This might seem a bit ugly from a functional-programming perspective, but
> I've
> found components to be quite powerful, and overall helps to constrain where
> and how mutation happens. "Game state" is generally in flux -- well, it is
> everything variable, and can be compared closely with save-game state.
> Most code
> which doesn't update game state can be functional. Actually, it feels
> creepy to
> have a variable assignment in the code, since mutation is generally to
> game-state
> and that's handled through a database. So the resulting style is
> functional+database.
>
> -Tony
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5670 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-08 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-07 1:48 Anthony Tavener
2012-08-08 9:21 ` Arnaud Spiwack [this message]
2012-08-08 14:17 ` Anthony Tavener
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMoPVjfcJ5TgnrQfBLiQEPh8iXqwRKiyXDnxx-ksB125D+xKOQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=arnaud.spiwack@lix.polytechnique.fr \
--cc=anthony.tavener@gmail.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox