Applicative functors and records in purescript

user_11255651 0
Viewed 313

In Haskell, I'm used to doing stuff like this.

data Foo = Foo { foo :: String, bar :: String }

mFoo :: (Monad m) => m String -> m String -> m Foo
mFoo foo bar = Foo <$> foo <*> bar

The same does not work in purescript, however. Is there a way to achieve the same outcome, ie keep the record syntax while allowing partial application via applicative functors when building the instance?

Thanks!

purescript haskell
1 Answers

In PureScript you don't have to define such a record type upfront. Polymorphic version:

mXY :: forall a b m. Apply m => m a -> m b -> m { x :: a, y :: b }
mXY foo bar = { x: _, y: _ } <$> foo <*> bar

-- | which can be rewritten using lift2:
mXY' = Control.Apply.lift2 { x: _, y: _ }

And a monomoprhic equivalent:

type Foo = { x :: String, y :: String }

mFoo :: forall m. Apply m => m String -> m String -> m Foo
mFoo = Control.Apply.lift2 {x: _, y: _ }

A "live demo" using wonderful try.purescript.org + custom gist:

https://try.purescript.org/?gist=a37f5f0c50e0640e34ea5a4788c0c999

Of course there is a practical value in using a newtype around Record too like:

newtype Foo' = Foo' { x :: String, y :: String }

and in such a case I would propose something like:

mFoo'' foo bar = map Foo' $ { x: _ , y: _ } <$> foo <*> bar

but I think that this could be expressed in a more elegant and shorter way which I don't know :-)

EDIT:

This is probably even nicer syntax using ado:

ado
  x <- foo
  y <- bar
  in Foo { x, y }
user_1946140
Related