Typo, I wrote:
> as in "non-monadic values are impure"
meant of course
> as in "monadic values are impure"
Le dimanche 15 mai 2016, Silent Leaf <silent.leaf0@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Interesting interpretation!
> It might not be the one intended, but I always saw "pure" as meaning something like "input just wrapped" (echoing Maybe ofc), "input without effects", i think is the terminology. In other terms, to me "pure", there, is not an absolute description of the "type" of input (especially since the name of a function traditionally mostly defines the output, not the input), as in "non-monadic values are impure", but is a relative description visavis the input, aka, "the output is the undiluted, uneffectful monadic version of the input". Dunno if that was what you meant by "unadorned".
> In other terms "pure" makes me see the function as a sort of identity that does not dilute or otherwise modify the input value, solely "wraps" it (more or less metaphorically), makes it monadic without modification. I don't see it as meaning that its input values are of a purer "kind" than the corresponding outputs because those latter are (more) monadic. And we can feed monadic values to pure anyway.
>
> As for echoing "purely functional language", well ... i don't really see the link (but i might very well miss something), but at any rate isn't it true in the first place (Haskell being pure, barring uses of unsafeStuff/Foreign/etc)?
>
> Le dimanche 15 mai 2016, Doug McIlroy <doug@cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit :
>>
>>> the name [return] "stains" the functional semantics in Monadic code,
>>> in my opinion
>>
>> Amusing. For me, the term "pure" stains monads as impure or diluted.
>> The moral overtones of "pure", as in "purely functional language",
>> drive out more benign interpretatations such as "unadorned". Not
>> a felicitous coinage.
>>
>> Doug McIlroy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Beginners mailing list
>> Beginners@haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>>