[Haskell-cafe] better way to do this?

[Conor McBride]

On 7 Oct 2009, at 15:04, John A. De Goes wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
>
>> Peter Verswyvelen <bugfact at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> So yes, without using IO, Haskell forces you into this safe spot
>>
>> One could argue that IO should be broken down into a set of "sub- 
>> monads"
>> encapsulating various subsets of the functionality - file system,
>> network access, randomness, and so on.  This could extend the "safe
>> spot" to cover much more computational real estate, and effectively
>> sandbox programs in various ways.
>
> Good idea in theory, in practice I suspect it would lead to  
> unmanageable boilerplate.

Aye, but today's boilerplate is tomorrow's language design.

Cheers

Conor