[Switching to Haskell-cafe]
At 11:26 22/11/04 +, you wrote:
I would ask an alternative question - is it possible to live without
unsafePerformIO? I have never needed to use it!
I have used it once, with reservations, but at the time I didn't have the
time/energy to find a better solution. (Th
Obviously without knowing the details I am speculating, but would it not
be possible
to do a first pass of the XML and build a list of files to read (a pure
function) this returns
its result to the IO monad where the files are read and concatenated
together, and passed
to a second (pure function
I think this is a useful debate, because it touches on how Haskell meets
real-world programming needs, so I shall continue in that spirit...
At 22:22 22/11/04 +, Keean Schupke wrote:
Obviously without knowing the details I am speculating, but would it not
be possible
to do a first pass of th
Off topic, but interesting, Someone else keeps quoting this at me... I
prefer Knuth - paraphrased as I cant remember the quote - The best
software projects are the ones where the source code has been lost about
half way through the development and started from scratch.
The point is programmers
At 10:02 23/11/04 +, you wrote:
Off topic, but interesting,
Sure... that's why its in 'cafe, right?
Someone else keeps quoting this at me... I prefer Knuth - paraphrased as I
cant remember the quote - The best software projects are the ones where
the source code has been lost about half way t
On Monday 22 November 2004 23:22, Keean Schupke wrote:
> It seems to me that as unsafePerformIO is not in the standard and only
> implemented on some
> compilers/interpreters, that you limit the portability of code by using
> it, and that it is best avoided. Also as any safe use of unsafePerformIO
Can a C function be pure? I guess it can... The trouble is you cannot
proove its
pure?
But - why would you want to use a pure C function. The chances of any useful
C library function being pure are slim - and the performance of GHC in some
of the benchmarks shows that there is hardly any speed ad
Keean Schupke wrote:
> Can a C function be pure? I guess it can... The trouble is you cannot
> proove its
> pure?
>
> But - why would you want to use a pure C function.
Because it already exists? E.g. most BLAS/LAPACK functions are pure;
should they be re-written in Haskell?
[Yes, I know that
Keean Schupke wrote:
Can a C function be pure? I guess it can... The trouble is you cannot
proove its
pure?
A C function might have no observable side effects, even if it operates
destructively over its own private data structures. It mightn't be too
hard to establish a sound test for this sort of
Have you looked at Linear Aliasing, the type system used for TAL (typed
assembly
language)... one would assume that if a C compiler which compiles to TAL
were
produces, then you could proove purity?
Keean.
Conor McBride wrote:
Keean Schupke wrote:
Can a C function be pure? I guess it can... The
Glynn Clements wrote:
I thought these libraries did have some global state, like choosing
which solver is used... In which case treating them as pure could
be dangerous...
Keean.
Keean Schupke wrote:
Can a C function be pure? I guess it can... The trouble is you cannot
proove its
pure?
But
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 10:03, you wrote:
> But - why would you want to use a pure C function. The chances of any
> useful C library function being pure are slim - and the performance of GHC
> in some of the benchmarks shows that there is hardly any speed advantage
The typical case (for me) is
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:32:33PM +, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [Switching to Haskell-cafe]
>
> At 11:26 22/11/04 +, you wrote:
> >I would ask an alternative question - is it possible to live without
> >unsafePerformIO? I have never needed to use it!
There are plenty of non-IO reasons to use
David Roundy wrote:
There are plenty of non-IO reasons to use unsafePerformIO, for which it is
essential. If you want to write haskell code that uses a pointer
(allocated possibly via an FFI C routine), it has to be in the IO monad.
If you know that this pointer doesn't access memory that'll be ch
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:51:24PM +, Keean Schupke wrote:
> David Roundy wrote:
>
> >There are plenty of non-IO reasons to use unsafePerformIO, for which it is
> >essential. If you want to write haskell code that uses a pointer
> >(allocated possibly via an FFI C routine), it has to be in th
15 matches
Mail list logo
