On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Constantine Plotnikov > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Constantine, this all makes perfect sense. The piece I was missing was: > >> >> The statements could not modify variables from lexical context and the >> values from outer lexical context are passed according to the same >> rules as arguments of eventual method invocation. > > This is very different than the par operator from Occam, which is why I was > confused. > That is why I have called it Occam-like. I think that the primary idea that should be taken from Occam is a composition of parallel/asynchronous operations using seq/par etc (adapted to the functional usage style and promises and with appropriate safety).
These operator are a bit more high level than E's "when" operator, and they might better reflect the intention of the developer where they are applicable. They also offer own opportunities for optimization and safety checks. And I think that E would have been easier to use with these operators. Constantine _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
