<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Conal Elliott cites Steve Horne:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6SzRJqYrz+N6FmEYVYaRavw1+pBtBwiQPGzrsHi1_-8QsFng@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">I look at
this World parameter as purely hypothetical, a trick used to
gain an intuition. Whereas Jerzy (I think) uses it to claim
Haskell is referentially transparent - those differing x and y
values come from different worlds, or different world-states.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
I don't see this interpretation in Jerzy's words, and I'd be
very surprised if he had that sort of argument in mind.</div>
</blockquote>
I don't think either having used the 'World' model as an argument of
the referential transparency. <br>
The main reason is that I don't know what does it mean, the
referential transparency of the real world.<br>
<br>
There is a philosophical issue involved: the problem of IDENTITY,
which is as old as the humanity, and it will survive it... We simply
don't know what does it mean: "the same"...<br>
<br>
But I disagree quite strongly with the idea of "<i>World parameter
as purely hypothetical, a trick used to gain an intuition</i>". I
mentioned the language Clean (no reaction, seems that Haskellians
continue to ignore it...)<br>
<br>
In Clean this IS the IO model. You have such entities as FileSystem,
which has the Unique Access property, etc. You can put all that in
an equivalent of the IO Monad, constructed within Clean itself, not
as a primitive.<br>
<br>
Jerzy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>