Edsko de Vries wrote:
See "What is a purely functional language" by Sabry. Not quite a formal proof about *Haskell*, but then we would first need a formal semantics of Haskell to be able to do that proof ;-)
Thanks for the reference, and also to everyone who replied - all very useful and interesting. For what it's worth, the blog posts I was writing are here:
http://www.nobugs.org/blog/archives/2008/11/12/why-do-they-call-it-referentially-transparent/ http://www.nobugs.org/blog/archives/2008/11/12/why-do-they-call-it-referentially-transparent-ii/ Andrew _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
