On 05/15/2014 03:06 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 12:37:22 UTC, w0rp wrote:
To consider the design of pure, you must first consider that you
cannot add functional purity to an imperative language.
Of course you can. Functional languages execute in an "imperative
context". That's why you need monads.
...
Strictly speaking you don't "need" monads, they are sometimes just an
adequate way of structuring a program.
The term "pure function" is only needed in a non-functional language.
Applicative/functional languages only have mathematical functions, no
need for the term "pure" there.
In discussions about e.g. Haskell, it is often used to denote an
expression of a specific form inside a `stateful' DSL. E.g. if "η" is
the unit of some monad, then (η v) is sometimes called a "pure value",
while values of other forms are not called pure.
