[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why?
ekirpichov at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 11:08:04 EST 2009
You're right. I mean referential transparency.
2009/12/10 John D. Earle <JohnDEarle at cox.net>:
> Eugene, by purity do you mean effect free? There is a subtle difference. The
> lack of effects makes a language functional, but this does not imply that
> the language is pure.
> From: "Eugene Kirpichov" <ekirpichov at gmail.com>
> Sent: 10 Thursday December 2009 0838
> To: "John D. Earle" <JohnDEarle at cox.net>
> Cc: "Haskell Cafe" <haskell-cafe at haskell.org>
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why?
>> 2009/12/10 John D. Earle <JohnDEarle at cox.net>:
>>> My intuition says that laziness and purity are distinct whereas yours
>>> that purity is a necessary condition. This is what needs to be
>> Mixing impurity and laziness makes code whose behavior is too hard to
>> understand. So, there is no theoretical reason not to mix them, but
>> there is a practical one.
>>> I believe that everyone is thinking that lazy evaluation and strict
>>> evaluation are similar activities whereas they are profoundly different.
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> Eugene Kirpichov
>> Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru
More information about the Haskell-Cafe