From Fixing Haskell IO:
We can summarize the SDIOH (Standard Definition of IO in Haskell)
as a value of type IO a is a value, that performs, then delivers
a value of type a.
I think you've already made a critical mistake here. The quotes you
give all describe an IO value as something that when
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Stuart Cook sco...@gmail.com wrote:
From Fixing Haskell IO:
We can summarize the SDIOH (Standard Definition of IO in Haskell)
as a value of type IO a is a value, that performs, then delivers
a value of type a.
I think you've already made a critical
Many thanks to everybody who tried to set me straight on the thread about IO
monad and evaluation semantics. I've begun summarizing the info, and I
believe I've come up with a much better way of explaining IO; just flip the
semantic perspective, and think in terms of interpretations instead of
I have been trying to figure out the distinction between value, function and
computation. You raised a few points that I am not sure about.
In Computation considered harmful. Value not so hot either. you said:
I still don't like it; a lambda expression is not a computation, it's a
formal
* Daryoush Mehrtash dmehrt...@gmail.com [2009-02-13 11:31:06-0800]
Isn't the lambda expression a representation of something (potentially with
recursion) that yields a value and not the value itself?
The same terms may refer to different notions.
If you think of values as mathematical
Hi Daryoush,
2009/2/13 Daryoush Mehrtash dmehrt...@gmail.com
I have been trying to figure out the distinction between value, function
and computation. You raised a few points that I am not sure about.
In Computation considered harmful. Value not so hot either. you
said:
I still
I also recommend reading
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/IO_Semantics (mostly because I wrote
it). Feel free to improve upon it.
--
Russell O'Connor http://r6.ca/
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote,
