Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: To yi or not to yi, is this really the question? A plea for a cooperative, ubiquitous, distributed integrated development system.

Thanks for the explanation. But, doesn't this simply mean that the correct signature would be: serialize :: (Int - Int) - IO String to take in account the fact that serialise really use 'external' information that is not in the domain of pure Haskell functions? Having serialize in the IO

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: To yi or not to yi, is this really the question? A plea for a cooperative, ubiquitous, distributed integrated development system.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini wrote: Thanks for the explanation. But, doesn't this simply mean that the correct signature would be: serialize :: (Int - Int) - IO String to take in account the fact that serialise really use 'external' information that is not in the domain of

[Haskell-cafe] Re: To yi or not to yi, is this really the question? A plea for a cooperative, ubiquitous, distributed integrated development system.

Tom Schrijvers wrote: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini wrote: But, doesn't this simply mean that the correct signature would be: serialize :: (Int - Int) - IO String to take in account the fact that serialise really use 'external' information that is not in the domain of pure

[Haskell-cafe] Re: To yi or not to yi, is this really the question? A plea for a cooperative, ubiquitous, distributed integrated development system.

Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini wrote: Is there any fundamental reasons why Haskell functions/closures cannot be serialised? I believe that this is precisely what the distributed version of GHC used to do. Most languages, even Java, have a reflection capability to dynamically inspect an