You're right. I mean referential transparency. 2009/12/10 John D. Earle <[email protected]>: > Eugene, by purity do you mean effect free? There is a subtle difference. The > lack of effects makes a language functional, but this does not imply that > the language is pure. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Eugene Kirpichov" <[email protected]> > Sent: 10 Thursday December 2009 0838 > To: "John D. Earle" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Haskell Cafe" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why? > >> 2009/12/10 John D. Earle <[email protected]>: >>> >>> My intuition says that laziness and purity are distinct whereas yours >>> says >>> that purity is a necessary condition. This is what needs to be >>> reconciled. >>> >> >> Mixing impurity and laziness makes code whose behavior is too hard to >> understand. So, there is no theoretical reason not to mix them, but >> there is a practical one. >> >>> I believe that everyone is thinking that lazy evaluation and strict >>> evaluation are similar activities whereas they are profoundly different. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Eugene Kirpichov >> Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
-- Eugene Kirpichov Web IR developer, market.yandex.ru _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
