jeff1.61803: > On 2/6/08, Peter Verswyvelen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I also believed that, but then I'm confused: > > So monads *do* enforce uniqueness... So what is the difference between > Haskell's monad approach and Clean's uniqueness typing? I always thought > these were just two different ways to tackle the same problem, and I had > the > feeling Haskell's approach was actually more general. > > > IO and mutable array monads could be implemented on top of Clean's unique > arrays and world objects. So, I'd argue that Clean is at least as general > as Haskell. > > On the other hand, I've posted two similar problems to this list. In > Haskell I want to . . . > > 1) turn a mutable array into a lazy list > 2) turn the contents of a file into a lazy list > > The responses I've received are typically: > > 1) Use unsafeFreeze / unsafeThaw > 2) Use hGetContents. (which uses unsafePeformIO under the hood.) > 3) Don't use a lazy list. Rewrite the code to break the data up into > smaller chunks and process the chunks in a loop. > > I have solved both of these problems in Clean using a lazy list without > resorting to unsafe operations. So, it seems to me that uniqueness types > are more general than monads.
They solve a specific issue in the type system that goes statically unchecked. Monads are a separate issue (and kind of a non-sequitor here). Uniquness doesn't give you more than the IO monad. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
