On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Frank Atanassow wrote:
Java. Do you think that Haskell would be better without `unsafePerformIO'?
Without remarking on C#, I just wanted to point out that unsafePerformIO is not part of the Haskell language...
Umm, I hope that everyone in the implementors camps feels unsafePerformIO is a de facto (if not de jure) part of the haskell libraries. I use it an awful lot, and ironically not to do `imperative' type things but rather to deal with the case where files on disk, etc, are static over the entire program lifetime, so that their value can unambiguously be taken to be their contents, etc. In some ways it's aesthetically annoying that the same function name is used for both situations where IO isn't strictly ordered and you don't care if this means you get different file contents depending on when the read happens to occur, and when a file is essentially a `raw string CAF that happens to be on disk rather than compiled in'. ___cheers,_dave________________________________________________________ www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/pi.htm|tweed's law: however many computers email: tweed@cs.bris.ac.uk | you have, half your time is spent work tel: (0117) 954-5250 | waiting for compilations to finish.