On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:27:49 -0300, you wrote: >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)
I think you're misinterpreting what Martijn is saying. He's not talking about referential transparency at all. What he's saying is that in a language like C, you can always replace a function call with the code that constitutes the body of that function. In C-speak, you can "inline" the function. -Steve _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
