Steve Horne wrote:
Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Purity has nothing to do with the question of whether you can express
IO in Haskell or not.
....
The beauty of the IO monad is that it doesn't change anything about
purity. Applying the function
bar :: Int -> IO Int
to the value 2 will always give the same result:
Yes - AT COMPILE TIME by the principle of referential transparency it
always returns the same action. However, the whole point of that action
is that it might potentially be executed (with potentially
side-effecting results) at run-time. Pure at compile-time, impure at
run-time. What is only modeled at compile-time is realized at run-time,
side-effects included.
Well, it's a matter of terminology: "impure" /= "has side effects". The
ability of a language to describe side effects is not tied to its
(im)purity.
Again, purity refers to the semantics of functions (at run-time): given
the same argument, will a function always return the same result? The
answer to this question solely decides whether the language is pure or
impure. Note that this depends on the meaning of "function" within that
language. In C, side-effects are part of the semantics of functions, so
it's an impure language. In Haskell, on the other hand, functions will
always return the same result, so the language is pure. You could say
that side effects have been moved from functions to some other type
(namely IO) in Haskell.
Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus
--
http://apfelmus.nfshost.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
