On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Martijn van Steenbergen <mart...@van.steenbergen.nl> wrote: > On 8/2/10 7:09, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote: >> >> Given the definition of a Haskell function, Haskell is a pure language. >> The notion of a function in other languages is not: >> >> int randomNumber(); >> >> The result of this function is an integer. You can't replace the >> function call by its result without changing the meaning of the program. > > I'm not sure this is fair. It's perfectly okay to replace a call > "randomNumber()" by that method's *body* (1), which is what you argue is > okay in Haskell.
Nope. For example, suppose we have: int randomNumber(int min, int max); Equivalentely: randomNumber :: Int -> Int -> IO Int In Haskell if we say (+) <$> randomNumber 10 15 <*> randomNumber 10 15 That's the same as let x = randomNumber 10 15 in (+) <$> x <*> x If we had in C: return (randomNumber(10, 15) + randomNumber(10, 15)) That would not be the same as: int x = randomNumber(10, 15) return (x + x) Cheers! -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
