On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Conal Elliott wrote: > > > > > And I also raised a more fundamental question than whether this claim of > sameness is true, namely what is equality on IO? Without a precise & > consistent definition of equality, the claims like "f 42 == f (43 - 1)" are > even defined, let alone true. And since the conversation is about Haskell > IO, I'm looking for a definition that applies to all of IO, not just some > relatively well-behaved subset like putchar/getchar+IORefs+threads. > > Well, you'll no doubt be glad to know I think I've said about all I need > to say on this topic, [...] > Honestly, I'm not trying to get you to speak less, but rather to share your perspective more clearly. I've have more than my fill of circular arguments and ill-defined claims. I'm reminded of a quote from David R. MacIver in “A problem of language<http://www.drmaciver.com/2009/05/a-problem-of-language/>", Of course, once you start defining the term people will start arguing about > the definitions. This is pretty tedious, I know. But as tedious as arguing > about definitions is, it can’t hold a candle to arguing without definitions. > - Conal
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe