[mercury-users] Request for comments on this code

[Ralph Becket]

Ian MacLarty, Wednesday, 12 July 2006:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:55:40AM +1000, Ralph Becket wrote:
> > Ian MacLarty, Tuesday, 11 July 2006:
> > > I don't think so, since a particular IO state exists only once, so you
> > > can always only get one resulting IO state from calling an IO primitive,
> > > effectively making the operation det.
> > 
> > I don't follow you here.
> 
> Sorry I misread what you said above.  I thought you were saying we
> don't loose anything by pretending it's det.

That's what I meant.

> I was merely saying I don't think it makes any difference in practice
> whether you think of it as cc_multi or det.

I thought that's what I said?!

Of course, it does make a difference philosophically: by labelling IO
operations as det we are quietly assuming a deterministic universe,
whereas I believe it has been proved that the universe is fundamentally
probabilistic.

This is a quantum worm.  Schroedinger's worm, perhaps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------