On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Dan Doel <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > serialize is not at all the same in this regard. There is no class of > functions that is immune to its inspection powers, presumably, because that's > its whole point. But that also means that there is no class of functions for > which we are justified in reasoning equationally using the standard > extensional equality. The only way that would be justified is saying, > "serialize doesn't exist."
Admittedly, the class of reasoning I usually use in my Haskell programs, and the one that you talked about using earlier this message, is essentially "seq doesn't exist". However, I prefer to use this class of reasoning because I would prefer if seq actually didn't exist (er, I think the implication goes the other way). Not so for serialize: I would like a serialize function, but I don't want the semantic burden it brings. If only there were a way to... oh yeah. serialize :: (a -> b) -> IO String I still don't really get what we're arguing about. Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
