> What ideas do people have for getting rid of unsafePerformIO?
Hope my suggestion is not too naive.
I get along quite fine using implicit parameters in many cases, it's just
tedious explicitly typing them in every function context. I'd be pretty happy
if it was possible to define the 'scope'
Chung-chieh Shan wrote (snipped):
> The enabling technique behind our solution is to propagate values
> via types (literally), with the help of polymorphic recursion and
> higher-ranked polymorphism. The technique essentially emulates
> local type-class instance declarations. Configuration parame
On 2004-06-01T18:06:36+0200, George Russell wrote:
> The most common use of unsafePerformIO, for me at least, is initialisation.
> There *surely* must be a better way of doing this, but I haven't really
> seen much discussion of the topic. Here is my back-of-the-envelope
> suggestion for a new int
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:06:36PM +0200, George Russell wrote:
> What ideas do people have for getting rid of unsafePerformIO?
>
> The most common use of unsafePerformIO, for me at least, is initialisation.
> There *surely* must be a better way of doing this, but I haven't really
> seen much disc
What ideas do people have for getting rid of unsafePerformIO?
The most common use of unsafePerformIO, for me at least, is initialisation.
There *surely* must be a better way of doing this, but I haven't really
seen much discussion of the topic. Here is my back-of-the-envelope
suggestion for a new
