Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (snip) > Sequential thinking would be related to procedural programming, that is > ordering of statements are important but there's no state. Functional > programming is declarative, no order and no state. So, to be strict I'd > say that sequential form _is_ non-functional. At least if FOLDOC is > correct and I read and understood things properly. (snip)
You've completely lost me here. Order is /very/ important in functional programming. Consider function composition: Prelude> ((+1) . (*2)) 5 11 Prelude> ((*2) . (+1)) 5 12 There we have sequencing, and the computation has intermediate state. There's nothing non-functional about the above. (snip) > The world has state! Just see what a "stink" that has created in the > pure functional language camp! (snip) Mmmm. Monads deal with that very nicely, I think, but there's a way to go yet. -- Mark _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
