[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why purely in haskell?

Luke Palmer lrpalmer at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 19:12:33 EST 2008

On Jan 11, 2008 12:09 AM,  <ajb at spamcop.net> wrote:
> 1. Indirect "black holes" that are not expressible in a strict
> language.  You generally have to be doing something bizarre for this
> to occur, and it doesn't take too long before you can accurately
> predict when they constitute a likely risk.

What do you mean by "black hole" here?


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list