[Haskell-cafe] Re: unsafeInterleaveIO respecting order of actions

[Achim Schneider]

"David Menendez" <dave at zednenem.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
> <allbery at ece.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > On 2009 Jan 1, at 20:08, David Menendez wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Achim Schneider <barsoap at web.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There are no lazy monads. Monads imply explicit sequencing...
> >>
> >> Huh? How are you defining "lazy monad"?
> >
> >
> > We've had this discussion before; somewhere in the archives is an
> > example of a State monad doing things in data-driven order instead
> > of the apparently "explicit" monadic sequencing.  Monads don't
> > insure sequencing unless designed to do so (as, for example, IO).
> 
> Certainly. I asked because Achim might have been making a point about
> about call-by-need versus call-by-value, or something.
> 
Nah, I was speculating about (possibly better) ways to specify
dependencies of side-effects. Ways, that is, that enable the computer
to directly implement your perception of priorities like importance of
ordering vs. importance of results.

-- 
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.