Send Beginners mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Beginners digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Unwrap an expression? (Christopher Howard)
2. Re: Unwrap an expression? (Brent Yorgey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:23:40 -0800
From: Christopher Howard <[email protected]>
Subject: [Haskell-beginners] Unwrap an expression?
To: Haskell Beginners <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I was pondering the whole "Lazy"
aspect of Haskell, and was curious: is there someway you could create a
function "M", which you could pass an expression into, so that...
M (f (g... (n (x)) ...)) returns f
and/or returns the inner value (g... (n (x)) ...)
I don't know if that breaks the whole "referential transparency" idea or
not, but with all those lambda calculus tricks I've heard about, and the
lazy evaluation, I thought it would be worth asking.
--
frigidcode.com
theologia.indicium.us
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:19:04 -0400
From: Brent Yorgey <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-beginners] Unwrap an expression?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 02:23:40PM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I was pondering the whole "Lazy"
> aspect of Haskell, and was curious: is there someway you could create
> a function "M", which you could pass an expression into, so that...
>
> M (f (g... (n (x)) ...)) returns f
>
> and/or returns the inner value (g... (n (x)) ...)
>
> I don't know if that breaks the whole "referential transparency" idea
> or not, but with all those lambda calculus tricks I've heard about,
> and the lazy evaluation, I thought it would be worth asking.
It's a good question. You cannot do this, and you're right that it
breaks referential transparency. For example, suppose we have
f x = x + 3
Now using our mythical M function, we should be able to do
M (f 6)
and get f (or 6) as the result. But f 6 = 9 so we should be able to
replace it, like so:
M 9
but what is M 9? An error? In general, anything that works by
inspecting the *syntax* of expressions will break referential
transparency.
Even more simply, however, you might also want to consider: what would
the type of M be?
-Brent
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
End of Beginners Digest, Vol 39, Issue 3
****************************************
