"David Menendez" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2009 Jan 1, at 20:08, David Menendez wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Achim Schneider <[email protected]> > >> 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. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
