- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@yahoo.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc: dnovatchev@gmx.net
The missing citation is: [1] Simon Peyton Jones, Tackling the awkward squad: monadic input/output, concurrency, exceptions, and foreign-language calls in Haskell, at: http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/papers/marktoberdorf/ ===== Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL > I completely support this and want to explain it from another angle: > > Arguing against "non-determinism" in XQuery is in fact arguing against > its > being a functional (side-effects-free) language. > > More on the relationship of non-determinism to exception handling in > functional languages can be found in [1]. > > There, Simon-Peyton Jones says: > > "In particular, by confining the non-deterministic choice to the IO > monad > we have prevented non-determinism from infecting the entire language." > > There is a type-safe way to specify and implement order of evaluation in > a > functional language e.g. monads (the Haskell's do-notation), but such an > implementation would be very difficult without having higher-order > functions and lazy evaluation. > > None of these two is defined in XPath 2.0 and XQuery, therefore > implementing monads in the current version of these languages would be > like putting the cart in front of the horse. > > I think, however, that monads should be considered very seriously for a > language such as XUpdate, if this language is to remain a functional > one. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 15:16:29 UTC