Tony Morris

@takeoutweight Note again that "things which are (im)pure" are called expressions. Not state, not monads, not languages, not mutable refs.

@dibblego This equivocation is useless w/o a real treatment of the term "pure." I know the informal usage in FP; its fine--just not formal

@takeoutweight Pure is simply a property of expressions where equational reasoning is preserved. Many people, including you, abuse this.

@dibblego ? My straw man is "State is pure because it's in haskell." To you, pure is wrt expressions, thats fine. I offer no defn for "pure"

@takeoutweight It is not even possible for this to make sense. I implore you to try. This is just a miscategorisation of concepts.

@dibblego You are arguing my straw man. If its nonsensical that's fine by me. I want to provoke a ref for "pure" in the literature thats all

@takeoutweight Then why mention irrelevant things as "State" and "monad"? There is no straw man, there is context.

@dibblego Some claim State is pure but ML refs aren't. I don't, and don't defend those who do. You claim its nonsensical. A fair summary?