Comments on: Writing a generic XML pickler http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/ Silk Blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:22:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Dimi4lv http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Dimi4lv Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:42:59 +0000 http://blog.typlab.com/?p=102#comment-109 I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter? I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?

]]> By: Erik http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Erik Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:10:40 +0000 http://blog.typlab.com/?p=102#comment-75 I've found that TH is not an ideal way to write generic functions. The syntax is not very nice, and the errors can be strange, since you can't normally see the code. Writing generic functions (like the regular-xmlpickler) in regular is, in my opinion, much nicer than writing TH code. You're closer to the actual meaning, and you are writing real Haskell functions instead of meta-functions. You need a few extensions, most notably Type Families, but they are not that hard to understand. Note that you hardly have to write any code to <em>use</em> regular: the instances can be derived using TH (!). I’ve found that TH is not an ideal way to write generic functions. The syntax is not very nice, and the errors can be strange, since you can’t normally see the code. Writing generic functions (like the regular-xmlpickler) in regular is, in my opinion, much nicer than writing TH code. You’re closer to the actual meaning, and you are writing real Haskell functions instead of meta-functions. You need a few extensions, most notably Type Families, but they are not that hard to understand.

Note that you hardly have to write any code to use regular: the instances can be derived using TH (!).

]]> By: Max http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Max Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:09:03 +0000 http://blog.typlab.com/?p=102#comment-74 What's the advantage of using regular + generics over writing TH macro's to create the xmlpickler instances? I've done the latter, and while your code seems a bit shorter, writing all my datatypes using regular seems like a big big headache. Max What’s the advantage of using regular + generics over writing TH macro’s to create the xmlpickler instances? I’ve done the latter, and while your code seems a bit shorter, writing all my datatypes using regular seems like a big big headache.

Max

]]> By: Erik http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Erik Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:20:04 +0000 http://blog.typlab.com/?p=102#comment-72 As described, it has tags for constructors and record labels. So for the user type, it would look like this: <pre><code lang="xml"> <user> <name>Erik</name> <email>erik@typlab.com</email> <admin>true</admin> </user> </code></pre> As described, it has tags for constructors and record labels. So for the user type, it would look like this:

::CODECOLORER_BLOCK_1::

]]> By: Chris http://blog.silkapp.com/2009/11/writing-a-generic-xml-pickler/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Chris Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:53:20 +0000 http://blog.typlab.com/?p=102#comment-71 Cool! What does the generated XML look like? Cool! What does the generated XML look like?

]]>