On Wednesday 11 July 2007, you wrote: > Yes, that's one way to define IO. But it's not the only way.
Right. Aren't we saying the same thing? I mean, sure, the *one true way* to define IO is data IO alpha = ReturnIO alpha | JoinAtomically (STM (IO alpha)) | HOpenBind String (Handle -> IO alpha) | HCloseThen Handle (IO alpha) | HPutThen Handle Char (IO alpha) | HGetBind Handle (Char -> IO alpha) | ForkIOBind (IO ()) (ThreadId -> IO alpha) | UnsafeInterleaveIO (IO (IO alpha)) | ... but it's still reasonable to explain that GHC doesn't do it that way and that *in GHC* newtype IO alpha = IO (State# RealWorld -> (# alpha, State# RealWorld #)) newtype ST s alpha = ST (State# (STState s) -> (# alpha, State# (STState s) #)) no? I don't see your objection to it. Especially if it causes light bulbs to go off over people's heads. Jonathan Cast http://sourceforge.net/projects/fid-core http://sourceforge.net/projects/fid-emacs _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
