Also, Claude ... If I am correct, in your example, there is no in-place replacement happening.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:36 PM, C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay...I think I am beginning to understand. > Is it right to assume that "magic" is backed by FFI and cannot be done in > "pure" Haskell? > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: > >> C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I looked at State Monad yesterday and this question popped into my mind. >> > From what I gather State Monad essentially allows the use of Haskell's >> do >> > notation to "invisibly" pass around a state. So, does the use of Monadic >> > style fetch us more than syntactic convenience? >> >> At it's heart, monads are "just" syntactic convenience, but like many >> other syntactic conveniences, allows you to structure your code better. >> Thus it's more about programmer efficiency than program efficiency. >> (The "do notation" is syntactic sugar for >>= and >>). >> >> > Again, if I understand correctly, in Mutable Arrays also, is anything >> > getting modified in place really? If not, what is the real reason for >> better >> > efficiency? >> >> STArray and IOArrays are "magic", and uses monads to ensure a sequence >> of execution to allow (and implement) in-place modification. So this >> gives you better performance in many cases. Don't expect this from >> generic monads. >> >> -k >> -- >> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Kashyap > -- Regards, Kashyap
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
