On 08-Oct-1999, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reaction to my recent suggestion regarding IO (a concurrent non-deterministic
> machine) on the Clean discussion list was somewhat less than enthusiastic.
> One of the reasons was that apparently this would result in loss of
> referential transparency. (I never believed we had this anyway, so I
> didn't see this as a problem:-) Yet Concurrent Haskell is also based on a
> non-deterministic concurrent machine, with mutable variables shared
> by independent threads, but this preserves referential transparency?
Several previous concurrent extensions to Haskell did _not_ preserve
referential transparency, but Concurrent Haskell does, I believe.
Your suggestion on the Clean discussion list was quite vague, so perhaps
those who responded that it would result in a loss of referential transparency
were simply making a (pessimistic) assumption about what you meant,
thinking it would be like the concurrent extensions to Haskell that did
not preserve referential transparency.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
