Duncan Coutts <duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk> writes: >> [..] I have a sneaking suspicion [exceptions] actually *is* `unsafe'. Or, at >> least, incapable of being given a compositional, continuous semantics.
> Basically if we can only catch exceptions in IO then it doesn't matter, > it's just a little extra non-determinism and IO has plenty of that > already. Couldn't you just substitute "catch exceptions" with "unsafePerformIO" here, and make the same argument? Similarly, can't you emulate unsafePerformIO with concurrency? Further, couldn't you, from IO, FFI into a function that examines the source code of some pure function, thus being able to differentiate funcitions that are normally "indistinguishable"? I've tried to follow this discussion, but I don't quite understand what's so bad about unsafeInterleaveIO - or rather, what's so uniquely bad about it. It seems the same issues can be found in every corner of IO. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
