Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> What do you mean when you say the interface is pure? > > If your module is really pure then there should be an implemenation > of it (which could have really bad complexity) with the same observable > behaviour that uses only pure Haskell. Is this possible?
Really? I agree with the converse of that statement, but I don't think it goes both ways. To me a function or module is pure when you can use it without compromising the equational properties of the language. I don't think Data.Dynamic or Control.Monad.ST satisfy your criterion for purity, but I would call them pure (after discarding the functions marked unsafe in the latter).
-- Ben
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
