But the type system doesn't insist on such a proof - so is it not a hole? 2009/12/4 Neil Davies <semanticphilosop...@googlemail.com>: > Or maybe it should be renamed > > proofObligationsOnUseNeedToBeSupliedBySuitablyQualifiedIndividualPerformIO > > which is what it really is - unsafe in the wrong hands > > Nei > > On 4 Dec 2009, at 08:57, Colin Adams wrote: > >>> Please help me understand the holes in Haskell's type system. >> >> Not really wanting to support the troll, but ... >> >> unsafePerformIO? >> >> Can't it be removed? >> -- >> Colin Adams >> Preston, >> Lancashire, >> ENGLAND >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
-- Colin Adams Preston, Lancashire, ENGLAND _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
