Tony Morris

@EyalL I didn't say that. But no I don't take back the one you are alluding to. Conal is right if you read it properly.

@dibblego http://conal.net/blog/posts/is-haskell-a-purely-functional-language … besides the title, note the "and paradigms" part. Clearly no consensus on what fp means.

@EyalL I have no idea why you think this article somehow turns history on its head. It doesn't even suggest anything like you propose.

@dibblego note he mentions multiple "senses" of what f in fp could mean.

@EyalL Yes, he alludes to a confusion. Yes, this confusion exists. No, there is no reason to believe there is no consensus.

@dibblego no, he says "yes" it is functional in one sense but not in other sense. Does that sound like he's claiming there's one right def?

@EyalL He's apologising for the confusion and suggesting means by which to avoid it. Have you read Hughes and Wadler yet?

@dibblego yes I have. He's suggesting a new term which doesn't carry baggage of multiple definitions.