On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 12:10 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> ([effect] fn ('argType0 .. 'argTypeN) 'returnType)
This syntax could equally well be:
(fn [effect] ('argType0 .. 'argTypeN) 'returnType)
The motivation to put the effect first was that it reads better: pure
and impure are adjectives. Unfortunately it doesn't read very well for
things like MAP.
On reflection, I'm less and less convinced that
> where "effect" may be... missing, meaning presumptively impure
is useful. It is much less backwards compatible than it initially
looked. The question, I think, will come down to a matter of
conciseness. If impure functions are the rule, then absence of effect
should mean impure.
Unfortunately we just don't have enough experience yet to know.
shap
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
