[Haskell-cafe] Re: unsafeInterleaveIO respecting order of actions

"David Menendez" wrote:

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:

...

On 2009 Jan 1, at 20:08, David Menendez wrote:

...

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:

...

There are no lazy monads. Monads imply explicit sequencing...

Huh? How are you defining "lazy monad"?

We've had this discussion before; somewhere in the archives is an example of a State monad doing things in data-driven order instead of the apparently "explicit" monadic sequencing. Monads don't insure sequencing unless designed to do so (as, for example, IO).

Certainly. I asked because Achim might have been making a point about about call-by-need versus call-by-value, or something.

Nah, I was speculating about (possibly better) ways to specify dependencies of side-effects. Ways, that is, that enable the computer to directly implement your perception of priorities like importance of ordering vs. importance of results. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.