> Think of the following though experiment. What if I would have a function > "unparse:IO a->String" which gives the textual representation of the > specification of the object of type IO a? Clearly, IO is not a monad > anymore. Moreover, I don't think it would break the purity of Haskell. And > surely, in case of the IO monad, we can think of better manners to break a > program down.
Why would such a function cause IO to cease being a monad? There's no reason such a function couldn't be written, given an appropriate implementation of IO, and an implementation that is able to print a representation of a function (not too difficult for an interpreter). Imagine adding "deriving Show" to the data types IO and SysCall suggested by Ross Paterson in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. --KW 8-) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
