Explicit function call

[Glynn Clements]

Pavel G. Zhbanov wrote:

> > > > If it doesn't have a side effect, why do it anyway? The result 'c'
> > > > does not depend on a.
> > 
> > > myFunc uses IORef and it's (IORef's) result I use afterwards in some
> > > other functions.
> > 
> > OK: what is myFunc's type?  If it ends in IO alpha, for some alpha, you
> > can say: do a <- myFunc ... etc.  If it doesn't, then you should
> > probably re-think its definition.
> 
> myFunc :: a  -> [b]
> (a and b are my own types)
> 
> Actually, inside myFunc I used unsafePerformIO (didn't want to change
> the whole programm just because of one function). The purpose of myFunc
> is to append some value to "some list" lying somewhere (somewhere is
> "defined" by IORef), store the resulting list and return a copy. 

There's a reason why the name unsafePerformIO begins with "unsafe". It
is *not* a magic wand that can simply get rid of the "IO" whenever it
turns out to be inconvenient.

You need to change myFunc's type to:

	myFunc :: a  -> IO [b]

then use:

	do a <- myFunc ...

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>