On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:08 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't see any breaking of referential transparence in your code.
Every time you do an IO operation the result is basically
non-deterministic since you are talking to the outside world.
You're assuming the
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't see any breaking of referential transparence in your code.
Every time you do an IO operation the result is basically
non-deterministic since you are talking to the outside world.
You're assuming the IO has some kind of semantics that Haskell makes
no promises
You're assuming that IO operations have semantics.
From the Haskell program's point of view, and when reasoning about
Haskell programs (not their interaction with the world) you should
assume that every IO operation returns a random result.
The way Oleg's program behaves does not break RT under
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:08 +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't see any breaking of referential transparence in your code.
Every time you do an IO operation the result is basically
non-deterministic since you are talking to the outside world.
You're assuming the
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
So the argument is something like: we can think of the result of a call to
unsafeInterleaveIO as having been chosen at the time we called
unsafeInterleaveIO, rather than when its result is actually evaluated. This
is on
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
So the argument is something like: we can think of the result of a call to
unsafeInterleaveIO as having been chosen at the time we called
unsafeInterleaveIO, rather than when its result is actually evaluated. This
is on
On 2009 Mar 5, at 8:08, Simon Marlow wrote:
So the argument is something like: we can think of the result of a
call to unsafeInterleaveIO as having been chosen at the time we
called unsafeInterleaveIO, rather than when its result is actually
evaluated. This is on dodgy ground, IMO: either
