On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:51:11PM +0100, Colin Runciman wrote: > >>My interaction depends on the (subtle order of) evaluation of a pure and > >>total function? > >> > Pure, yes; total, no. > > Many important things depend on order of evaluation in lazy programs: > for example, whether they compute a well-defined value at all! The > interleaving of demand in the argument of a function with computational > progress in its result seems a perfectly natural view of interaction in > a lazy functional language. This sort of interaction is what actually > happens when your function applications are evaluated whether you > exploit it or not. I embrace it as part of lazy functional programming; > you prefer an appeal to something extraneous.
It is one thing to embrace lazy evaluation order, and another to embrace lazy IO (implemented using unsafeInterleaveIO). As a relative newcomer to Haskell, I got the impression that the "interact" style was always a hack, discarded for good reason in favor of the IO monad. Is there a strong case for interact? Andrew _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
