Hi,
You can consider that:
type IO a = World -> (World, a)
Where World is the state of the impure world.
So when you have:
getLine :: IO String
putStrLn :: String -> IO ()
Is is in fact:
getLine :: World -> (World, String)
putStrLn :: String -> World -> (World, ())
You can compose IO actions with:
(>>=) :: IO a -> (a -> IO b) -> IO b
(>>=) :: (World -> (World,a)) -> (a -> World -> (World,b)) -> World ->
(World,b)
(>>=) f g w = let (w2,a) = f w in g a w2
do-notation is just syntactic sugar for this operator.
So there is an implicit dependency between both IO functions: the state of
the World (which obviously doesn't appear in the compiled code).
Sylvain
2015-04-15 11:07 GMT+02:00 Jon Schneider
Good morning all,
I think I've got the hang of the way state is carried and fancy operators work in monads but still have a major sticky issue.
With lazy evaluation where is it written that if you write things with no dependencies with a "do" things will be done in order ? Or isn't it ?
Is it a feature of the language we're supposed to accept ?
Is it something in the implementation of IO ?
Is the do keyword more than just a syntactic sugar for a string of binds and lambdas ?
Jon
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe