[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why?

[Eugene Kirpichov]

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
>>> says
>>> that purity is a necessary condition. This is what needs to be
>>> reconciled.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eugene Kirpichov
>> Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>



-- 
Eugene Kirpichov
Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru