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

Achim Schneider barsoap at web.de
Thu Jan 1 21:19:42 EST 2009

"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.

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list