Re: [Haskell-cafe] "show" for functional types

1 Apr 2006


      Neil Mitchell wrote:
...
Now lets define "super show" which takes a function, and prints its
code behind it, so:
superShow f = "not"
superShow g = "\x -> case ..."
now superShow f /= superShow g, so they are no longer referentially transparent.
OK.  I'm probably being really dense today, but where did "g" come
from?  Is this is the internal definition of "not"?  And does this loss
of referential transparency contaminate the rest of the language, or is
this superShow just an anomaly?

Thanks,
    
Greg Buchholz