Re: [Haskell-cafe] better way to do this?

On 7 Oct 2009, at 15:04, John A. De Goes wrote:

On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:13 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:

...

Peter Verswyvelen writes:

...

So yes, without using IO, Haskell forces you into this safe spot

One could argue that IO should be broken down into a set of "sub- monads" encapsulating various subsets of the functionality - file system, network access, randomness, and so on. This could extend the "safe spot" to cover much more computational real estate, and effectively sandbox programs in various ways.

Good idea in theory, in practice I suspect it would lead to unmanageable boilerplate.

Aye, but today's boilerplate is tomorrow's language design. Cheers Conor