Results 1 -
2 of
2
What is a Purely Functional Language?
- Journal of Functional Programming
, 1998
"... Functional programming languages are informally classified into pure and impure languages. The precise meaning of this distinction has been a matter of controversy. We therefore investigate a formal definition of purity. We begin by showing that some proposed definitions that rely on confluence, sou ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 14 (6 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Functional programming languages are informally classified into pure and impure languages. The precise meaning of this distinction has been a matter of controversy. We therefore investigate a formal definition of purity. We begin by showing that some proposed definitions that rely on confluence, soundness of the beta axiom, preservation of pure observational equivalences, and independence of the order of evaluation, do not withstand close scrutiny. We propose instead a definition based on parameter-passing independence. Intuitively, the definition implies that functions are pure mappings from arguments to results; the operational decision of how to pass the arguments is irrelevant. In the context of Haskell, our definition is consistent with the fact that the traditional call-by-name denotational semantics coincides with the traditional call-by-need implementation. Furthermore, our definition is compatible with the stream-based, continuationbased, and monad-based integration of computa...
A Monadic Framework for Delimited Continuations
- UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLICATION IN J. FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING
"... Delimited continuations are more expressive than traditional abortive continuations and they apparently require a framework beyond traditional continuation-passing style (CPS). We show that this is not the case: standard CPS is sufficient to explain the common control operators for delimited continu ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 10 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Delimited continuations are more expressive than traditional abortive continuations and they apparently require a framework beyond traditional continuation-passing style (CPS). We show that this is not the case: standard CPS is sufficient to explain the common control operators for delimited continuations. We demonstrate this fact and present an implementation as a Scheme library. We then investigate a typed account of delimited continuations that makes explicit where control effects can occur. This results in a monadic framework for typed and encapsulated delimited continuations, which we design and implement as a Haskell library.

