Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7887471
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 3, 20262026-06-03T05:35:22+00:00 2026-06-03T05:35:22+00:00

I know as a fact, that we cant implement an IO monad independently, but

  • 0

I know as a fact, that we cant implement an IO monad independently, but I dont know why exactly. This code is an attempt to implement an imperative paradigm using functional language. Can you explain the difference between this example and true IO? It looks like function main implements the correct action order and remains lazy.

import System.IO.Unsafe   

data Io a = Io a 

runIO :: Io a -> a
runIO (Io a) = a

instance Monad Io where  
 return x = Io x
 Io a >>= f = f a

-- internal side effect function 
output :: Show a => a -> Io () 
output s  = return $! unsafePerformIO $ print s

----------------------------------------------------------------

mainIO :: Io ()                             
mainIO = do output "A"  
            b <- return "B"
            output b     
            output b 
            x <- return (undefined :: String)
            return undefined
            output "C"    
            head [output "C", output "C"]
            output x  
            output "D"

test = runIO mainIO 

output:

"A"
"B"
"B"
"C"
"C"
<interactive>: Prelude.undefined
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-03T05:35:23+00:00Added an answer on June 3, 2026 at 5:35 am

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to show. You’ve embedded an encoding of IO in Haskell, using the existing implementation of IO as a target.

    The key is your use of unsafePerformIO and print — primitives you’re borrowing from the other IO system.

    Consider: what if you didn’t have any other IO system to lean on. So no print or other way to call primitive IO functions. How would you implement IO?

    So while you can implement the IO abstraction many ways in Haskell, you always have to fall on new runtime primitive functions to actually call into the operating system to do real IO. That’s the bit that can’t be implemented in Haskell natively.


    As a reference , see the PhD thesis "A Functional Specification of Effects", Wouter Swierstra, which gives an overview of various ways IO and other effects have been encoded in Haskell, and defines a specification of IO as a purely functional data type (kind of an extension of what you’ve done).

    enter image description here

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I know for a matter of fact that Type cannot be used when passing
Ok I know this is simple, in fact damn simple, I did this in
Know this might be rather basic, but I been trying to figure out how
I know that it's a subject that can raise a lot of debate, but
I know this is fairly subjective, but I'm diving into testing and learning about
I've tried many different things, but I cant seem to get rid of this
Anyone know how to get round the fact that you can't tab through styles
This is a purely theoretical question, I know that the standard containers interface are
The default JFileChooser works, but what I don't like is the fact that it
I know this question has been asked a bit before. But looking around I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.