2009/12/12 Luke Palmer <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Jason Dusek <[email protected]> wrote:
> >ÂWhere do we draw the line between "machinery" and "packages"?
> >ÂThe types don't tell us what libraries we need.
> ...you might mean what *haskell* libraries does a piece of
> code depend on?
Yes, that's what I mean.
>ÂTo address that, note that I consider a statement like:
> import Control.Monad.State
> As a form of impurity in a sense...
It's not referentially transparent, that's for sure.
> I have brainstormed solutions to this problem while thinking about my
> (currently on hold or dead) Udon project...
I remember reading about that.
As regards the object identity problem, say we just talk about
uniquely naming bytestrings. Well, different bytestrings are
different so they are "their own name"; if we don't want to
compare them via substring matching, though, then we need a
consensus algorithm to name them identically across nodes on
I wonder if a solipsistic internal namespace is not a workable
solution? My repo knows objects (patches) I created as having
unqualified names; objects from your computer are labelled
as "Luke's repo/..." and vice versa. The repo can be garbage
collected for patches that are actually the same by background
string equality checks.
As someone -- I think it was you? -- suggested on the list a
little while ago, the chance of hash collision is not zero.
Haskell-Cafe mailing list