Re: Unsafe hGetContents
* Don Stewart: > fw: >> Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed >> handle state for Haskell Prime? >> >> (I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern >> matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations >> which are expected to be valid in a pure language.) > > Isn't this a broader complaint about lazy IO in general? Yes, sort of. But doesn't lazy input derive its justification from being present in the prelude? ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Unsafe hGetContents
fw: > Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed > handle state for Haskell Prime? > > (I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern > matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations > which are expected to be valid in a pure language.) Isn't this a broader complaint about lazy IO in general? -- Don ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Unsafe hGetContents
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed handle state for Haskell Prime? (I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations which are expected to be valid in a pure language.) ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
