Keean Schupke wrote:
David Sabel wrote:
The main reason is: Nobody asks for it.
Actually I think Simon Marlow has talked in the past about wanting to make GHC only do safe optimisations on unsafePerformIO.
I conjecture, a problem is:
if you use FUNDIO as a semantics for Haskell, you have to give up
referential transparency in the strong sense. FUNDIO-programs are
only referential transparent with respect to the defined contextual equivalence.
David
Surely all programs are only referentialy transparent with regards to the defined contextual equivalence? (just there is only one notion of equivalence used so far)... What would the problem be with intoducing other notions of equivalence to cope with things like unique naming...
Perhaps something like this is possible, I don't know.
After all you would only change the definition of equality for unsafePerformIO and not for any other function.
There's a problem: Other functions can call functions which make use of unsafePerformIO. Maybe a dependency
analysis could a solution to split the parts of the program into one part which is 'unsafe' and needs a special treatment and the other 'pure' part.
David
Keean. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
