On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>
> And yes, somewhere there's some global mutable state in the OS.
> I've never claimed that it should be totally forbidden. Various
> circumstances forces it upon us. What I've been claiming is that
> it should be avoided where possible. Which is
Adrian Hey wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote:
The use of a plain value to initialize the ref rather than a monadic
computation would ensure that there would be no problems with trying
to work out which order to initialize top level refs that are
dependent on values of refs in other modules since there c
Brian Hulley wrote:
The use of a plain value to initialize the ref rather than a monadic
computation would ensure that there would be no problems with trying to
work out which order to initialize top level refs that are dependent on
values of refs in other modules since there could be no depend
Brian Hulley wrote:
The use of a plain value to initialize the ref rather than a monadic
computation would ensure that there would be no problems with trying
to work out which order to initialize top level refs that are
dependent on values of refs in other modules since there could be no
dependen
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
And yes, somewhere there's some global mutable state in the OS.
I've never claimed that it should be totally forbidden. Various
circumstances forces it upon us. What I've been claiming is that
it should be avoided where possible. Which is almost always.
Thus there s
Adrian Hey wrote:
I've written about 5 lines of USB devices drivers for *BSD (in C).
They work from the bare metal and up. They contain no global
mutable state (except for variables that define debugging levels,
because you need to access these from the in-kernel debugger).
Yes, I was awar
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Adrian Hey wrote:
Or put another way, would it be possible to implement the socket
API, exactly as it currently is, entirely in Haskell, starting with
nothing but hardware? I don't believe it is possible, but perhaps
somebody can show me I'm wrong.
If I get to implemen
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:53:35PM +0100, Brian Hulley wrote:
> At the moment, there is a strange unnatural discrepancy between the fixed
> set of built-in privileged operations such as newUnique which are "allowed"
> to make use of global state and user defined operations which have to rely
> o
John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:09:58AM +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
What really frustrates me about all this is that AFAIK there are no
significant technical or theoretical reasons why we can't get
this safety (without resort to the unsafePerformIO hack). The
only serious obstacle se
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:09:58AM +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
> What really frustrates me about all this is that AFAIK there are no
> significant technical or theoretical reasons why we can't get
> this safety (without resort to the unsafePerformIO hack). The
> only serious obstacle seems political,
Not to fuel the flame war, I will limit myself to two comments.
Adrian Hey wrote:
Or put another way, would it be possible to implement the socket
API, exactly as it currently is, entirely in Haskell, starting with
nothing but hardware? I don't believe it is possible, but perhaps
somebody can sh
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I was going to respond, but Cale very eloquently said most
of what I was thinking.
I don't think eloquent is the word I would use, but I'm certainly
glad you didn't feel the need to repeat all that. It'd be really nice
if just for once the "global mutable state is evil
On Apr 24, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Adrian Hey wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I think global mutable variables should be regarded with utmost
suspicion. There are very few situations where they are the
right solution.
Well IMO even the use of the term "global mutable variable" causes
muddled thin
Adrian Hey wrote:
.
I was going to respond, but Cale very eloquently said most
of what I was thinking.
Let me just add one thing. Sometimes you hear the argument
"I need a global IORef here because it's to track the use of my
single screen" (or keyboard, or elevator, or some some
other gizm
On 24/04/06, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > I think global mutable variables should be regarded with utmost
> > suspicion. There are very few situations where they are the
> > right solution.
>
> Well IMO even the use of the term "global mutable variable" cau
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I think global mutable variables should be regarded with utmost
suspicion. There are very few situations where they are the
right solution.
Well IMO even the use of the term "global mutable variable" causes
muddled thinking on this and I wish people would stop it. The
Robert Dockins wrote:
Ahhh... the singleton pattern. There is a debate among OO theorists
about whether the singleton pattern is actually a good idea. I tend to
side with those who say that it is Just Wrong. The reality is that
"singletons" are only unique within some scope (OS process, VM
Brian Hulley wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
Sometimes I also think it would be nice if all the standard lib
functions with IO types would instead take arbitrary MonadIO types,
so you could avoid having to write down liftIO all the time
Thanks for the suggestion - it is certainly a lot better
Robert Dockins wrote:
Are you compiling with -fglasgow-exts? You're relying on generalized
newtype deriving, which is a GHC extension.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-
extensions.html#newtype-deriving
If that's not it, what's the error you are getting?
'MonadStat
On 21/04/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Dockins wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
> >> Robert Dockins wrote:
> >>> On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
> >>>
> Hi -
> I've run into the global mutable state problem described in h
On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in
http://
[snip]
There is only
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in http://
[snip]
There is only one GUI for the application and only one control in
it
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in http://
www.haskell.org/hawiki/GlobalMutableState
Since the page was last edited in March last year, I'm won
Robert Dockins wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in http://
www.haskell.org/hawiki/GlobalMutableState
Since the page was last edited in March last year, I'm wondering if
there have been any developments or furth
On Apr 21, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in http://
www.haskell.org/hawiki/GlobalMutableState
Since the page was last edited in March last year, I'm wondering if
there have been any developments or further thoughts on how
Hi -
I've run into the global mutable state problem described in
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/GlobalMutableState
Since the page was last edited in March last year, I'm wondering if there
have been any developments or further thoughts on how to safely create top
level IORefs since they are abso
26 matches
Mail list logo
