Jim Apple wrote:
> Even if this is denotationally different from a value like zero ::
> Int, I think it is also different from getLine :: IO String. It
> seems to mean something between these.
I think I understand your point better now: Do you want another
denotational distinction, somewhere between the semantic simplicity of
Int or [String] and the semantically intractable kitchen-sink IO? I'd
like to see more exploration in that in-between space.
Cheers,
- Conal
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jim Apple
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:15 AM
To: haskell@haskell.org
Subject: [Haskell] Re: Why is getArgs in the IO monad?
I still think I'm missing your point, but let me take a stab at it.
Conal Elliott wrote:
> I'm suggesting you might better understand the
> why of Haskell if you think denotationally (here about the meaning of
> the [String] type), rather than operationally.
The meaning of a type seems to be about what happens operationally. "::
[String]" is an operational guarantee, so if we let "getArgs ::
[String]" that is a promise that there is some list of Strings at
runtime.
> I'm
> guessing that none of those 2^32+1 values is what you'd mean by
"length
> getArgs".
Well, I suppose I mean something like an existential type: there is some
Int that is length getArgs.
Even if this is denotationally different from a value like zero :: Int,
I think it is also different from getLine :: IO String. It seems to mean
something between these. I suppose my intuition is that it is closer to
:: Int
Jim
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
