As I didn't catch the whole thread, I hope I'm not just repeating
everyone else:
Roel van Dijk wrote:
> I guess what unsafe should mean is a matter of taste. Personally I
> find correctness more important that pureness. An unsafe function will
> crash your program if evaluated when its preconditi
Then you are talking about something very different from the subject that
Andrew started.. He clearly ask about "unsafeXXX understood as impurity
"which defiles our ability to reason logically about haskell programs like
we would like to".
I also want to discuss here that any signature of type IO
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> then Data.List.head Data.Maybe.fromMaybe etc are also unsafe?.
Yes, I consider them unsafe. Whenever I see those functions I know
that I have to look elsewhere to see if their preconditions hold. I
would have preferred that listToMaybe w
> Do you document the preconditions?
Yes. The 'safe' variants of those functions have all preconditions
listed in the accompanying (haddock) comments. The 'unsafe' variants
simply state that they promote exceptions to errors.
> It seems to me that this is more useful than naming a function
> unsaf
> "Roel" == Roel van Dijk writes:
Roel> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Antoine Latter
wrote:
>> Tangential to all of this - sometimes my unsafeXXX functions
>> are pure, but partial. So I'll have:
>>
>> foo :: a -> b -> Maybe c
>>
>> and
>>
>> unsafe
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:
> Tangential to all of this - sometimes my unsafeXXX functions are pure,
> but partial. So I'll have:
>
> foo :: a -> b -> Maybe c
>
> and
>
> unsafeFoo :: a -> b -> c
I use the "unsafe" prefix in the same way. For me it means 'assume
that pr
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Andrew Wagner wrote:
> So we all know the age-old rule of thumb, that unsafeXXX is simply evil and
> anybody that uses it should be shot (except when it's ok).
> I understand that unsafeXXX allows impurity, which defiles our ability to
> reason logically about haske
On 5 Feb 2009, at 22:11, Andrew Wagner wrote:
So we all know the age-old rule of thumb, that unsafeXXX is simply
evil and anybody that uses it should be shot (except when it's ok).
I understand that unsafeXXX allows impurity, which defiles our
ability to reason logically about haskell prog