Just for the record, I want exactly what Adrian proposed.
There seem to be two interesting points about the semantics:
1) To prevent unwanted typecasts, all toplevel "<-" bindings must be monomorphic.
This restriction should be sufficient to keep everything perfectly safe (does anyone disagree?), except for...
2) Evaluation order.
That's what everyone has been fighting about.
So what are our options?
a) unsafePerformIO - like.
This has some potential for abuse, but it works.
Lazy initialization is a good thing for large programs - and that includes side effects. People deliberately do that in OO programs - you'll find methods that look like getSomeMemberVar accessor methods, but the first time they're invoked, they'll actually initialize a part of the program. I'd actually like to abuse this feature that way.
Anyway, the non-determinism this introduces is not nearly as bad as what you get from concurrency or even signal handlers...
b) Some predetermined order, with semantics like mdo:
John Meacham wrote:
The basic idea is that your entire program behaves as if in a giant 'mdo' block, ordered in module dependency order.
What is module dependency order? There's no such thing when there are circular dependencies, and when there aren't any, it might still depend on the order of import directives, which is probably not something I want program semantics to depend on.
I feel that In a large program, you'll probably get more surprises from this.
The good thing is that you can always use unsafeInterleaveIO to get the other semantics back, so we should probably investigate this further.
Is there some option c) that I overlooked?
Another question is, if the order is to follow program order, what do we still need main for? Ugh...
Cheers,
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
