That argument makes sense, although I find it a bit counter-intuitive still. If I saw the function `pure` for the first time, my first impression (however wrong it may be) would be that it takes a pure value (regardless of context) and does something with it. Applying `pure` to an IO operation goes against that intuition.
Looking at the type of `return :: a -> m a", there are several slightly more intuitive (to me) options in this discussion already: lift: the value `a` is lifted into the monad `m` pack: the value `a` is packed into the monad `m` wrap: the value `a` is wrapped in the monad `m` inject: the value `a` is injected into the monad `m` promote: the value `a` is promoted to a monad `m a` On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:16, Tobias Dammers <tdamm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is a pure value in the context of the outer monad (the one you wrap it > in). I'd say pure is still appropriate. > > On Aug 6, 2013 10:14 AM, "Tom Ellis" > <tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2...@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:03:04AM +0200, J. Stutterheim wrote: > > `putStrLn "Hi"` is not a pure value... > > Why not? > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
