3 ms·
Sure it is! The effect `(MonadTeletype m, MonadNow m) => m a` is just as real as IO. There's nothing special about IO except that the Haskell RTS knows how to i
by tel 12y ago
Sure it is! The effect `(MonadTeletype m, MonadNow m) => m a` is just as real as IO. There's nothing special about IO except that the Haskell RTS knows how to interpret it.
I could, for instance, build a pure interpreter of those effects into, say, a stream transformer or compile it into a different language (though we'd have to do some tricks to expose Haskell's name binding).
If you want your lock obtained/lock released bit then you want indexed monads. It's easy enough to do, but the safety/complexity tradeoff in the Haskell community has landed on the other side of that... probably for more historical reasons than actual technical ones.
- pron 12y ago> There's nothing special about IO except that the Haskell RTS knows how to interpret it. But that is what makes it an effect. Sure, you can model effects in a "hosted" language this way, but that's not what we mean by effects.
- tel 12y agoI disagree. In force, the Haskell RTS is just a "model" of the IO effects as well. In particular, there are at least two such models, the GHCi interpreter and the GHC compiler! As another example, it'd be completely possible to write your own IO and interpret it in another language. You can read about this on Edward Kmett's blog where he talks about implementing IO for Ermine [0] http://www.tuicool.com/articles/I3EJVb http://www.tuicool.com/articles/I3EJVb Of course, there's something important that makes us want to differentiate "real world" side effects from internal "model effects". Ultimately, from a correctness and reasoning POV, there ought to be no difference. From a practical point of view, some models are more interesting or important than others. But as a compiler writer you're put right back into the same hot seat. [0] Unfortunately, his blog appears to be OOC right now, so here's a weird chinese mirror!