Paul Johnson, at 01:03 +0200 on Sun, 1 Apr 2001, wrote:
Without commenting on main theme of this thread, although I have plenty
of opinions on that too, and not wanting to open too many cans of
worms, may I simply mention that I hope we are not trying to cater too
much to the ave
John BEPPU, at 12:50 -0700 on Sat, 31 Mar 2001, wrote:
> I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
> completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
not to worry... If anything, it might educate them. I
didn't really grok functional programming before I got
to
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > :contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally
> > speaking most people won't use it and the optimizer
> > will have to infer whether it's safe to not execute
> > the function every time...
>
> It shouldn't necessar
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> :contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally speaking most people
> won't use it and the optimizer will have to infer whether it's safe to not
> execute the function every time...
It shouldn't necessarily have to.
If I *tell* it it's safe, that should be the end of
At 08:17 PM 3/30/2001 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
>James Mastros wrote:
>
> > Ahh, bingo. That's what a number of people (inculding me) are
> suggesting --
> > a :functional / :pure / :stateless / :somthingelseIdontrecall attribute
> > attachable to a sub.
>
> :memoizable
>
> :clean
>
> :nos
