Is there any particular reason IO functions in the standard libraries
aren't grouped into type-classes?
This might allow for:
1) Testing IO code without actual input and output. (I have done this on a
small scale, but it presently involves much ugliness).
2) Redirecting output of a function that
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:47 PM, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any particular reason IO functions in the standard libraries aren't
grouped into type-classes?
I'm guessing it's to stop the report from getting too complicated. If
you want an IO abstraction, you can try
