[Haskell-cafe] Identity of indiscernibles
jake.mcarthur at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 01:02:13 CEST 2013
Ah! It seems that my wording was ambiguous. All I was trying to say is that
there is nothing you can do with an IO action which will cause an otherwise
pure expression to exhibit side effects during evaluation, *not* that an IO
action is observable in pure code or that they are arbitrarily manipulable.
On Aug 8, 2013 9:39 AM, "Jerzy Karczmarczuk" <jerzy.karczmarczuk at unicaen.fr>
> I am sorry for having mixed-up arguments (but who throws the first
> Jerzy seemed to suggest that the "impurity" of IO was somehow related to it
> not supporting very many operations.
> No, not really. I added
> First, it is not true that you can do with, say, (printStr "Ho!" )
> whatever you want. In fact, you can do almost nothing with it. You can
> transport it "as such", and you can use it as the argument of (>>=).
> after the message of Jake McA.
> *You can do whatever you want with them* with no harmful effects in any
> Haskell expression.
> This was an additional layer of bikeshedding, not exactly about purity.
> Or, just a bit: the ONLY "real" operation on an action, i.e. (>>=)
> produces side-effects... Other don't, but --
> Again, here my point is that calling "pure" an entity which is opaque and
> inert, is meaningless (or "redundant" if you wish...), this was all.
> Jerzy K.
> PS. Tom Ellis:
> One could simply implement IO as a free monad
> Interesting. I wonder how.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe